prev <-> next
[2017-12-20 17:35:38] - xpoovs: you hold for a full year. "yep" to everything else. ~a
[2017-12-20 17:22:53] - Reviewing: I pick 5 stocks (or mutual funds) and we buy and hold for a period of a quarter, a year? It tracks price appreciation/depreciation, dividends, etc. And we see who wins/who beats the market. Clear? -- Xpovos
[2017-12-20 16:57:10] - i guess that's kinda ambiguous. hopefully you know what i meant? ~a
[2017-12-20 14:31:55] - xpovos: sure. payment is settled however.
~a[2017-12-20 14:11:07] - a: I mentioned it to her a few times. She seemed interested, but I typically have to tell her to do something 20 or so times before she does. -Paul
[2017-12-20 14:09:43] - a: Does the bet pay out in BTC/BCH? -- Xpovos
[2017-12-20 13:53:53] - paul: is gurkie including her picks? xpovos/mig/aaron: any picks? the link is in the top bar called "stocks". you don't have to be included in the bet if you don't want (the default is to not be included in the bet). ~a
[2017-12-20 13:31:08] - Xpovos: I saw that too and thought it was weird. I assumed it was hyperbole. -Paul
[2017-12-20 13:02:54] - xpovos:
he's a short seller, so maybe they have their own vocabulary? 1/(up 1000%) = down 91%? ~a[2017-12-20 11:59:08] - I'm skeptical of a "famous" short seller who says, even off-handedly, that something can be down 1000 percent. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-20 11:24:01] - a: I don't short, but a lot of those companies do look like juicy targets for shorting. -Paul
[2017-12-20 11:23:44] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/19/infamous-short-seller-andrew-left-scrambling-for-ways-to-bet-against-bitcoin.html "I think if other people were able to get borrows [on GBTC] it'd be down 1,000 percent tomorrow," Left said Tuesday. -Paul
[2017-12-20 11:23:21] - a: Any reason I should have a dog in the fight in terms of political reasons? -Paul
[2017-12-20 11:02:13] - yep. it doesn't matter to you from a financial perspective, no. but it matters for technical (or political) reasons who wins. ~a
[2017-12-20 10:37:51] - a: Well, in theory it shouldn't matter for me, right? Since I own equal amounts of BTC, BTH and BTG then I don't care who wins as long as it's one of those. -Paul
[2017-12-20 10:19:31] - yeah
part of me is hoping that trend continues. it would be quite the upset. ~a[2017-12-20 09:58:53] - a: Wow.... bitcoin cash, huh? -Paul
[2017-12-19 16:17:04] - a: There is a difference to me to requiring you to get to work somehow and its your choice, maybe you want to get up early and walk, vs saying you have to drive a car now otherwise you can't do your job. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 16:16:25] - a: I think xpovos made the point earlier about changing the terms after you've been hired. I don't think its needed for a company to pay for a car but its ok for them to require you to be able to get to work somehow and leave that up to you as to how. If they require that you drive in and it has to be a car I think that would be similar. Where they have to help accommodate existing employees or fire those that don't have them. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 15:57:05] - daniel: it's cool we disagree. let's take it further. how about a car? is it absurd that your company doesn't pay for your transportation to work? some companies pay for metro and bus fees. some companies pay for your parking (or often really they pay rent that includes your parking). some pay you to bike to work (hehe). is it absurd that your company doesn't pay for those things? ~a
[2017-12-19 15:39:03] - a: I guess I currently disagree that its appropriate to assume a cell phone but apparently I'm in the minority in my response. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 15:11:23] - daniel: cellphones, at a software company, yes. i didn't have a cellphone (of any kind) in 2003, and it was pretty miserable going on work-travel. have you had to go on work travel without a cellphone? it's pretty nuts. ~a
[2017-12-19 15:07:26] - a: So in your opinion we are far enough along where you think its fair and reasonable to expect employees at your company (though given the nature of your work it does make more sense but in general for a software company) to have cellphones as a necessary tool for their jobs. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:57:06] - daniel: haha no. i went a few months without a smartphone a few years ago. but if i needed mfa to access some software, that would have been my problem, not my companies (totally imo though). ~a
[2017-12-19 14:55:11] - a: So what if it was someone who normally has a cell phone but is switching companies or some shit and for a month won't have one. Still fire them? -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:55:10] - daniel: kinda defeats the purpose of the mfa though
~a[2017-12-19 14:54:43] - a: Hmm an emulated cell phone running locally that can run the MFA app. I hadn't thought of that... I wonder if I could do that too. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:50:34] - most people have piles of smartphones sitting at their desks so it's really a non-problem anyway. we all use emulators too, so we could get a mfa app running on a laptop as well. ~a
[2017-12-19 14:47:22] - i mean . . . i'm joking. but am i? we're (ostensibly) a smartphone company. why would we hire somebody who didn't know a shit-ton about smartphones. ~a
[2017-12-19 14:46:37] - fire them. ~a
[2017-12-19 14:40:20] - a: What would you guys do if someone didn't have a cell phone? -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:40:02] - mig: I've asked, there is currently no policy in place for those without cellphones. They said it would be handled on an individual basis but I don't know how they plan on handling it without just providing a cellphone or firing the person. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:35:27] - mig/daniel: we use mfa where i work. through smartphones. but everybody in my company has a smartphone (and that was also true back when the company started in 2010). ~a
[2017-12-19 14:33:38] - mig: that's a good point. cellphones are hackable. still having to hack two different things (the password and the cellphone) seems pretty hard. ~a
[2017-12-19 14:28:53] - Actually I'm surprised they just wouldn't provide keyfobs for everyone anyways. I can't imagine I'd be comfy with rando cellphones that could be easily compromised as an authentication vector for my systems. - mig
[2017-12-19 14:28:43] - daniel: i put you down for 60% vti and 40% vt (to change things up). i picked 40% instead of 20% like last time because vt includes US stocks as well. you're excepted from the bet like last time, so you can't win. but, feel free to change your shit around if you want. ~a
[2017-12-19 14:26:45] - daniel: I would say I would be peeved if there wasn't a clause to maybe deal with those who might not have a smartphone. At the very least they could provide a keyfob or something for those folks. - mig
[2017-12-19 14:21:52] - a: But, we'll see. We get to change all the way up until Jan 1, right? -Paul
[2017-12-19 14:21:04] - a: Oddly enough, two of your picks are ones I also considered (NVDA, TSLA). In fact, I had Tesla on my list all the way until this morning, when I decided I was a little too worried about it being overvalued and under-performing over the next year. -Paul
[2017-12-19 14:19:50] - a: It's a riskier pick, but I believe they could be at the start of a turnaround to where the business fundamentals catches up to the potential of the company. I have never been the biggest fan of Facebook. Seems like it's too susceptible to people one day deciding they don't need it anymore. -Paul
[2017-12-19 14:19:00] - a: GOOG was one I was debating between. I wanted a safer stock to balance things out (like Amazon from this round) and I kinda think Alphabet still has lots of room to grow. Twitter is a different story. Feel like it's a super important communication company that is turning into a media company. -Paul
[2017-12-19 14:11:29] - mig: Email, IM, intranet. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:05:20] - daniel: MFA for what? Network logins, VPN, building access? - mig
[2017-12-19 14:03:51] - Xpovos: Multi factor authentication. They want to register our cellphones so they can send us a random string that we have to enter along side our passwords. Definitely was not part of the hiring terms that I was aware of. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 14:02:46] - But, what is MFA? Since my understanding of that acronym is "Master of Fine Arts" which doesn't fit the context any. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-19 14:02:08] - If it's a change to your terms of employment, then it's an issue, IMO. If it's a part of the stated requirements at hire, it's less problematic (for me, but I cede that it might still be a philosophical problem). -- Xpovos
[2017-12-19 14:00:57] - paul: goog! wow, interesting. i'm not sure which is weirder, goog or twtr. no fb, paul? ~a
[2017-12-19 13:59:40] - a: Maybe? Like if you hired someone to work in Ballston then after a year decided they needed to make daily visits to Maryland and they didn't have a car because they had been taking the metro then yeah a car is a luxury item. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 13:45:42] - daniel: is a car a luxury item? even if you could walk/bus to work, my company would expect you to have access to a car (for things like customer visits, etc). ~a
[2017-12-19 13:33:58] - a: I think its because its an assumed luxury item. Maybe cell phones are pretty ubiquitous but I still think of them as optional on some level I suppose. Maybe I'm just slow to move them out of that mental category. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 13:31:39] - a: Needs to accept text messages. Its not an overly high bar but somehow it bothers me to require it without helping to provide it. I seem to be in the vast minority here at my company though so trying to see if I'm just being crazy. -Daniel
[2017-12-19 13:30:14] - daniel: also . . . does it even need to be a smartphone? don't most of you have at least a normal cellphone already? ~a
[2017-12-19 13:29:38] - daniel: you're not wrong. it's a weird grey area though. (often) they require that you get yourself to work, but they (often) don't reimburse you for your transportation. how is that any different? ~a
[2017-12-19 13:22:32] - My company is requiring all employees to have cell phones in order to do MFA but is not planning on providing phones or reimbursing existing phones. Am I wrong to be annoyed/angry about that? -Daniel
[2017-12-18 21:41:33] - a: Sounds good. I'll take a little more time deciding on my last one or two. -Paul
[2017-12-18 12:10:04] - paul: i'll have mine by the end of the week. you can put them in a new spreadsheet if you want, or wait until i have mine. either way though, i won't look at them until mine are decided on. ~a
[2017-12-18 12:06:47] - http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and-paper.html mining bitcoin with pencil and paper - aaron
[2017-12-18 12:04:10] - a: I think I have my picks for the next stock market challenge. Do I reveal here or put it into a spreadsheet somewhere? -Paul
[2017-12-18 10:05:58] - xpovos: nice video, the situation that the two players got into offering/refusing to offer threefold repetition draws was really cool. it seemed very human where stockfish knew it was playing from a disadvantage so it pursued a draw, and alphazero was "cocky" and played for the win - aaron
[2017-12-18 09:46:45] - a: that's sort of what i expected, and that seems like a good way to resolve it. - aaron
[2017-12-18 09:18:37] - aaron: i did have it play itself. i think it did end up in a loop. but, with my chess ai, i added in the rule where board positions can't be returned to (the third time you're at a board position, that immediately counts as a stalemate in chess), and that solved the loop problem. i looked up the rules to onitama and it doesn't seem to have any stalemate rules. i guess if it was ever played competitively they'd add some stalemate rules? ~a
[2017-12-17 10:47:51] - aaron: I've bee watching a bunch of videos (and reading articles and more, etc.) about those games too. I've seen some of agadmator's other work, but I liked this analysis better, personally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g9SlVdv1PY Obviously, it's for a different game, but highlighting a game where AlphaZero won as black is important, given the black disadvantage. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-17 09:28:14] - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/lookingglass was anybody else affected by the mr robot ARG? i switched over to waterfox - aaron
[2017-12-17 08:40:17] - a: did you ever make the AI play itself in onitama? does it win, or does it end up in a loop? - aaron
[2017-12-17 08:39:46] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXJWPhDsSY alphazero vs stockfish "immortal zugzwang" game. he has several other commentated games and i've enjoyed watching them all - aaron
[2017-12-16 14:33:41] - a: Sure. Just let me know when you are here and I can open the garage door. -Paul
[2017-12-15 13:48:00] - paul: can i use your garage for parking my bike tomorrow? soon, i'll have a much shorter route. ~a
[2017-12-15 12:40:25] - aaron: have we talked about onitama? i play this game with some of my coworkers on occasion. i ended up writing an ai for it. ~a
[2017-12-14 16:55:30] - daniel: i also make all of my individual stock purchases in a tax-advantaged account. which is pretty awesome, i have to say. ~a
[2017-12-14 16:43:18] - Daniel: Sure, and the tax implications could be less relevant in a tax advantaged account (which is where I do all of my individual stock purchases in). -Paul
[2017-12-14 16:22:42] - Paul: Yeah I was just thinking that the why there were selling is irrelevant when comparing to passive investing if a passive approach wouldn't result in a sale in the same case (acquisition / merger) but if it does result in the same behavior in either an active or passive approach then its a wash for comparison purposes. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 15:09:55] - Daniel: Yeah. The Motley Fool way is basically believing that you CAN beat the market by choosing individual stocks, so if they chose LinkedIn as a stock to beat the market, but didn't believe Microsoft would be one, it doesn't seem totally accurate to ding that as a "sale" in the same way as selling something they previously picked. -Paul
[2017-12-14 14:03:44] - Paul: I guess perhaps thats fair. I was trying to think vs passive investing if there was a difference but perhaps it would be a sell for either approach if suddenly all your LinkedIn stock became Microsoft stock but wasn't the appropriate amount then you would have to sell off your new found Microsoft shares. So maybe I agree? Or at least understand better. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 13:58:05] - Daniel: That latter one strikes me as making a new decision of "Do I want to have cash or own shares of Microsoft?" -Paul
[2017-12-14 13:57:31] - Daniel: Well, in the case of a company being bought out for cash, it's kinda a forced sell eventually, right? So the question is either sell now or sell 3 months from now for like 1% more. In the case of companies being merged into another, I think it's fair to want to own something like LinkedIn but not be excited about owning Microsoft. -Paul
[2017-12-14 13:28:48] - Paul: Why should those not count? Not trying to be picky or a pain - I'm just not sure I understand why those would not count. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 12:35:48] - Daniel: No idea if that holds across all 151, but that would cut it down a fair bit. -Paul
[2017-12-14 12:35:34] - Daniel: So, I'm glancing through recent sell recommendation articles, and out of the most recent 20, it looks like roughly half were due to the company being acquired (basically suggesting that members sell rather than wait a few more months for a cash payout or shares in the acquiring company). -Paul
[2017-12-14 12:26:41] - -Daniel
[2017-12-14 12:26:38] - Paul: I'm not sure just going off of "Since inception, David and Tom have made 360 buy recommendations as of December 16, 2016, and subsequent sell recommendations for 151 of their buy recommendations." -Daneil
[2017-12-14 12:20:24] - Daniel: Hmmm, 151 is more than I would've thought. I wonder if he's counting closed positions based on acquisition as sells. I can't immediately find a count of the number of sell recommendations on the website. -Paul
[2017-12-14 11:04:12] - funny read about voter fraud. ~a
[2017-12-14 11:03:35] - Paul: As to whether that constitutes "very rarely" is a matter of opinion I suppose. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 11:03:10] - 151 times isn't none. Certainly less than their buys but not like its nothing. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 10:44:48] - Daniel: Re: Taxes. Part of the reason the Fool preaches long term holding periods is because if you don't sell, you don't get taxed (excluding things like dividends). The particular service they looked at (Stock Advisor) very rarely issues any sell recommendations. -Paul
[2017-12-14 10:43:45] - Daniel: I think the outsized impact in the early years is partially because it has had more time to grow. A lot easier for a company to grow 1,000% over 10 years than 2 or 3. One of the things the Fool is well aware of, though, is that the majority of gains often come from a minority of picks. -Paul
[2017-12-14 10:42:16] - Daniel: I don't think all picks are in the S&P, although I honestly never thought to check. The Fool typically measures against the S&P since that's the most common measuring stick. -Paul
[2017-12-14 10:40:14] - (also no mention of taxes - and very little mention of costs) -Daniel
[2017-12-14 10:39:06] - Also statements like "although the portfolio benefits from particularly favorable investments during the initial sample years" seem to acknowledge that if you make a few good choices it can have an outsized impact (see adrian and gbtc) but that seems dicey because then if those few choices hadn't worked out then it can all go south. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 10:37:42] - Paul: Re: The Fool. Do they only recommend stocks from within the S&P500? If not I'm not sure using it straight up is the best comparison. Still useful but maybe some composite of S&P and a rest of the market index? Dunno. -Daniel
[2017-12-14 10:28:41] - paul: i sent you an IM. ~a
[2017-12-14 10:28:24] - paul: "Ripple was one of the 4 biggest cryptocurrencies" that's a slight oversimplification. it's not a normal block-chain. it can't be mined. which means that it was originally wholly owned by a company. like a stock. (they call it a "token" or an "asset" in cryptocurrency speak). and they still own 60% of the tokens. which means they can basically set the market cap (almost) wherever they want it to be. ~a
[2017-12-14 10:12:47] - https://businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/free/9404/imfi_2017_03cont1_Filbeck.pdf Not going to lie, I don't understand the majority of this, but I do appreciate the conclusion: "We find that the Stock Advisor recommendations do statistically outperform the matched samples and S&P 500 index, since the creation of Stock Advisor in 2002 regarding both short-term and long-term holding periods." -Paul
[2017-12-14 06:57:26] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/bitcoin-ether-litecoin-ripple-differences-between-cryptocurrencies.html I had no idea Ripple was one of the 4 biggest cryptocurrencies. Seems like a pretty practical use case for blockchain technology. -Paul
[2017-12-13 12:53:41] - paul: yep. i was playing around with that column a few weeks ago. fixed, thanks. ~a
[2017-12-13 12:01:28] - a: Also, I think your "bottom 4" average is wrong in the spreadsheet. I think it should be 22%, like mine. -Paul
[2017-12-13 10:47:17] - uh yes? i figured we'd reveal our picks early (week of dec 18?) in case . . . we forget or something. but sure, you can change your picks, why not. ~a
[2017-12-13 10:36:46] - a: Sounds okay to me. So we pick our stocks on the 18th, but don't count returns until Jan 1st? Can we change things if something dramatic happens between then? -Paul
[2017-12-13 10:34:09] - paul: yep. may 1st open until april 30th close. though i think this next challenge we should do 2017 close to 2018 close (close to close is the "normal" way). ~a
[2017-12-13 10:28:15] - a: Hey, our bet was for an entire year, right? So I haven't officially lost until May-ish? -Paul
[2017-12-13 10:06:56] - a: I'm sticking with "normal" securities. -Paul
[2017-12-13 10:06:37] - a: I guess it depends on your confidence in cryptocurrencies appreciating and their ability to capture that increase. I like the idea of some crypto index fund (ideally low fee) over owning btc outright because of the diversification aspect. I will not be picking it for our challenge, though. -Paul
[2017-12-13 09:38:14] - paul: 2.5%/year is pretty lame too. but on-par with gbtc (2%) considering how much simpler gbtc is. ~a
[2017-12-13 09:33:53] - paul: hah, wow. probably not. i think the "accredited investors" and 25k minimum limitations probably break the spirit of our contest. i like the idea though. should i invest irl? the 25k minimum is kinda lame considering the serious trust involved. ~a
[2017-12-12 19:52:26] - a: https://www.bitwiseinvestments.com/ You picking this for December 18th?
-Paul[2017-12-12 17:21:44] - daniel: yep, the 51% attack is a real threat. especially if you have a well financed miner that's willing to temporarily disrupt the network. but, like i said, it would be very costly. and temporary. most people would not be happy with their government spending literally billions taking down a financial network (mostly) used for legitimate purposes. many might consider the attack illegal. ~a
[2017-12-12 16:52:07] - I don't really have a point in all this. Just thinking through random worse case scenarios and how things might break it. -Daniel
[2017-12-12 16:51:46] - -Daniel
[2017-12-12 16:51:43] - a: I guess mostly the 51% percent thing is what I'm thinking of. Like if Trump decided that bitcoin was a threat to the country and ordered the DoD to stop it. They could easily spend 1b. I'm not sure what timeframe that 1b covers but how long would they have to keep it up to derail it as a currency? I mean you could probably go without your bits for awhile but if suddenly all USD transactions were frozen for a week that would be huge.
[2017-12-12 16:19:47] - daniel: i think many of your questions are based on a 51% attack. it's not as easy as you think it is, even for a state actor. it would cost about $1b (14000000 * .51 / 13.5 * $2k) plus the electrical costs (which is probably close to $10b / month). could a state actor spend billions on something like this? sure. but it's only a temporary disruption. and the billions you've spent won't work on all currencies. ~a
[2017-12-12 16:00:54] - daniel: "What if someone wrote a virus to make a botnet to corrupt the block chain?" corrupt it how? there are multiple types of corruptions, and i can't easily respond depending on what you mean exactly. ~a
[2017-12-12 15:59:35] - daniel: omg, i guess i missed some questions. "What happens if US or China or whoever uses a crap ton of super computers to have the majority of the CPU power?" supercomputers are not the most efficient means of generating double sha-256 hashes. regardless, we call this the 51% attack, and the threat is real. it is (at least partially) detectable though. ~a
[2017-12-12 15:07:46] - Daniel: My take is, maybe, but the instability be agent design comes at a significant cost, particularly since instability due to market turmoil is already such a big thing for the currency. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-12 14:53:00] - daniel: yeah they could. but in my it's like the same way a rogue developer could just push a bunch of malicious changes to a Git repository... everything's reversible and you can always see what happened. past a point, i guess you might be looking at some sort of blacklist/whitelist scenario - aaron
[2017-12-12 14:24:54] - If it just forced people to keep switching to some new chain isn't that basically making the currency not usable? -Daniel
[2017-12-12 14:24:19] - Couldn't the country just switch too once the users did? -Daniel
[2017-12-12 14:24:04] - I was just thinking if some large country decided they thought crypto currency was bad for their ability to exert control on things would they be able to just break it by throwing more computer power at it than users could. -Daniel
[2017-12-12 14:18:39] - daniel: so if something like that happened, it would definitely be very very bad but it would be fixable and people wouldn't necessarily lose all their money - aaron
[2017-12-12 14:18:06] - daniel: i might be mistaken, but i think events like that are what have caused other forms of currency to fork. i don't think there would be anything stopping bitcoin users from saying, "well, that other blockchain is longer but we don't care about it because screw those guys" - aaron
[2017-12-12 13:40:09] - I guess that works with selfish actors but I'm not sure if that will always apply to terrorists (who might make a botnet) or to state actors who just want to break it or corrupt it. -Daniel
[2017-12-12 13:39:17] - "If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth" - from the white paper
[2017-12-12 13:38:55] - a: The idea of distributed honesty seems to work when its being used by random people but if corporations and gov's get involved they can leverage more significant resources. What if someone wrote a virus to make a botnet to corrupt the block chain? -Daniel
[2017-12-12 13:35:53] - a: "If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains" - What happens if US or China or whoever uses a crap ton of super computers to have the majority of the CPU power? -Daniel
[2017-12-12 13:31:40] - a: ....i will never forget about pico :-O - aaron
[2017-12-12 13:05:32] - daniel: if one central authority decided which block was the newest block, then that central authority could be corrupted. ~a
[2017-12-12 13:05:15] - daniel: you can't allow voting to decide which block is the newest block, because how would you decide who gets a vote? so you use proof of work. i prove that i've done some cryptographic processing first, and in return, i get to decide which block is the newest block (though the block still has to follow the "rules"). ~a
[2017-12-12 13:01:24] - daniel: sure. the whitepaper is short and easy to read, but i can try to explain. i assume you already know what a "block" is (if not, it's a small ~1mb list of transactions). to avoid double-spending, you have to have *someone* decide that "this" block is the newest block. ~a
[2017-12-12 12:16:01] - a: "mining is the only thing that "secures" the network from being overtaken by nefarious controllers" - Can you expand on that any? Or is just because the miners are what maintain the whole blockchain ledger dealio? Is it possible / feasible to be able to maintain the blockchain without mining? (assuming those are related) -Daniel
[2017-12-12 11:41:20] - aaron: https://web.archive.org/web/20121114120326/http://www.bad-candy.com/candies/pico/ (web-archive from sub-message) haha, i had forgotten about pico. ~a
[2017-12-12 11:38:39] - a: Yeah, I think I owned CMG at the time and I thought at worst it would be flat. SNAP I was a little more hesitant on, because I felt like it was overvalued at its IPO. -Paul
[2017-12-12 11:36:22] - yeah, and her picks weren't even bad companies. who would have guessed cmg -1/3rd? snap is just as much of a fad (imo) as facebook. but snap -1/3, facebook +20%? crazy. ~a
[2017-12-12 10:56:17] - a: I'm upset at losing to you, even more so considering the stakes (hundreds of USD at this point, right?), but I am pleased at crushing Daniel, even though it's a short time horizon and a limited universe. As Gurkie showed us, all it takes is one or two bad picks out of 5 for things to drastically change. -Paul
[2017-12-12 10:38:50] - paul: i agree: we don't have X number of shares. we've been using a unitless ratio. next week i'll have my picks decided. i don't have my picks yet, but i intend to win again.
~a[2017-12-12 10:32:39] - daniel: mining is and always will be absolutely necessary. mining is the only thing that "secures" the network from being overtaken by nefarious controllers. it uses a lot of power, and that does suck: but i like to compare that to the electricity (and gas) consumed by the bank buildings of the world. these financial buildings probably consume orders of magnitude more energy. ~a
[2017-12-12 10:30:56] - a: Glad you think so (not too hard). This is not math that my head is good at conceptualizing, especially if we don't really have X number of shares. You got your picks ready for next week? I'm narrowing mine down from 7 or so contenders. Looking forward to doubling the market's return again.
-Paul[2017-12-12 10:28:30] - a: Do all the people that work on mining bitcoins - are they needed to sustain the blockchain? Or is that separate? I read some article about the the power being consumed by people mining and how it was a problem for bitcoin but how much do we really need mining anymore for bitcoin? Couldn't they just stop mining? -Daniel
[2017-12-12 10:27:59] - paul: no, we'd probably use the "normal" accounting. i.e. what would actually happen if you held the shares. sometimes it goes like: 1 share of A becomes, "a" shares of A and "b" shares of "B". sometimes 1 share of A is paid out a dividend equal to the value of B. we'll do whatever the stock does. i've gotten pretty good at spreadsheet math. it shouldn't be too hard.
~a[2017-12-12 10:07:35] - a: Question: For the stock market challenge, what happens if, say, Netflix decides to spin off its DVD business (Qwikster part 2)? Would you essentially have 6 positions going forward (NFLX and then the new Qwikster spinoff)? -Paul
[2017-12-12 10:03:32] - a: Thanks! I'll take a look at those that I don't recognize. -Paul
[2017-12-12 10:03:00] - a: "did you mean "not too well known"?" Heh, yes. Whoops. -Paul
[2017-12-12 08:38:51] - paul: "too well known" vs "lesser known" did you mean "not too well known"? i'm pretty sure you want lesser known companies, but i'm not sure. if you want the list of things i have invested in (in the past or present), that i didn't know too much about at the time, i'd say vwdry, gctaf, acbff (hah), or ostk. or maybe rht or saic?
~a[2017-12-11 21:48:11] - Xpovos: Agreed. I could probably come up with 5 privately held ones real quick, but (a) I can't invest in them so the exercise is moot at (b) they probably don't have a ton of info to dig into because they aren't public. -Paul
[2017-12-11 21:38:40] - Paul: The tricky part there is the "public" portion. There are tons of fascinating privately held companies that I could name. But part of that fascination comes, I guess, from the fact that they are private and so there are elements of mystery. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-11 21:25:16] - to see if it's an activity that I enjoy or might be good at. -Paul
[2017-12-11 21:24:56] - Random question, but does anybody here know of any interesting public companies (ideally too well known) that might make for a good investment? I'm not looking for any hot stock tips, but I'm looking for a lesser known company to try to dig in and learn about... -Paul
[2017-12-11 15:45:15] - There's also an issue of the timeline because the law was substantially re-writen in 1977, so if the alleged crimes took place prior to 1977 as I believe they did, they'd be prosecuted under the old law's language. Which is of course substantially harder to get a felony conviction with. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-11 15:38:12] - So a quick Google search tells me that Alabama has no statute of limitations on criminal charges of felonies that might apply. That still limites the police because the misdemeanors are off the table, and misdemeanors are much easier to get a conviction on in cases like this where there's doubt. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-11 15:35:19] - mig: Far more the second case than the first. Most states have no statute of limitations for crimes like these, it's just that there is far less evidence than in, say, a murder case. There the cops can at least be sure a murder occurred. In these cases the lack of evidence and the need to "prove beyond a reasoanble doubt," combined with a frequent unwillingness from victims to testify results in a bunch of nothing. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-11 15:06:05] - Statute of limitations would be my best guess. The other thing is that these things happened so long ago and have barely any evidence to go on that building a legal case to prosecute I imagine would be pretty difficult to do. - mig
[2017-12-11 14:18:01] - Daniel: Sorry, I knew "consensual" was the wrong word. I guess I meant not... reciprocated? I know underage = non-consensual by default, but I was under the impression that his advances were welcomed in those cases. I could absolutely be wrong on this, though. I already knew I didn't like Moore before so I haven't been following this much. -Paul
[2017-12-11 14:12:59] - If they are underage then its auto non consensual. I thought that was the point of statutory rape and what not. -Daniel
[2017-12-11 14:11:24] - Paul: My reading was definitely that the acts being alleged were non-consensual in at least some cases. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-11 14:10:33] - a: I don't know. A lot will depend on the laws of Alabama, which I am not familiar with. I could talk about what would happen in a similar situation in Virginia, but it probably wouldn't be all that heartening. I honestly expect Alabama's laws to be similar,if not even more titled towards Moore. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-11 14:10:29] - a: I just assumed it was a combination of (a) Some things maybe not being true (b) People not wanting to press charges (c) Statute of limitations. I haven't been following all of the stuff, but has he been accused of anything non-consensual? Or just having relations with girls who were too young to legally consent? -Paul
[2017-12-11 14:08:20] - a: What is the statute of limitations on those types of things? I have no idea, I know some things are basically forever but don't know about these. Next would be if the people who are accusing him actually want to file charges. It ups the process and requirements to do that instead of just talking to a newspaper. -Daniel
[2017-12-11 14:03:02] - paul/daniel/xpovos/mig: i have a question that google and wikipedia can't seem to answer: why haven't we seen an arraignment or indictment for roy moore? will we see them? when or why not? ~a
[2017-12-11 13:55:49] - Daniel: We're even seeing stuff like Flake in outright rebellion and retiring and stuff like that. -Paul
[2017-12-11 13:55:08] - Daniel: I almost wrote the exact same thing, but I do think we HAVE seen some backlash to Trump. His approval ratings are pretty poor, Democrats did decently well during the most recent election and liberal groups seem pretty energized to fight him tooth and nail. We're about a year in and his administration basically has zero legislation it has successfully passed. -Paul
[2017-12-11 13:46:07] - a: While I agree with the idea his purported acts are worse, Trumps is more evident and caught on tape so if you were going to be morally outraged by this kind of thing its hard for me to see Trump being ok but Moore not. Maybe I'm wrong though.. -Daniel
[2017-12-11 13:07:01] - paul: trump didn't molest any kids. this is a new line. this is a lower barrier. ~a
[2017-12-11 13:00:17] - a: Shouldn't we have backlash over Trump? I mean why expect it from Moores election and not Trumps? -Daniel
[2017-12-11 12:53:54] - a: Hmmm, I suppose. I think his election would be a bad reflection on voters in terms of putting party over principle, but I don't know if it ultimately will have that big of an effect on America's future. Although, having one more reliable pro-Trump vote is generally pretty concerning. -Paul
[2017-12-11 12:41:20] - paul: backlash and backfire. ~a
[2017-12-11 12:25:39] - a: What is the "pro" argument for Moore winning? -Paul
[2017-12-11 12:23:28] - will it be better for americans if moore wins or loses? i could see it both ways. the fact that it's this close, though, is a sign of a major problem with the world. ~a
[2017-12-11 10:41:02] - a: Not sure. I think there are different levels of options trading allowed. Maybe you are qualified for one and not the other? -Paul
[2017-12-11 10:20:42] - paul: does scottrade allow futures contracts? i see options, but no futures. ~a
[2017-12-11 10:07:04] - paul/xpovos: now that the gbtc markup is small (10-20%), gbtc is definitely an *easy* way to get bitcoin exposure. ~a
[2017-12-11 10:06:11] - paul: well, one interesting change was the gbtc markup. now that you can buy xbt/g8 (at a 8% markup right now) on the open market, the gbtc markup is at ~10%. gbtc markup went well over 100%. ~a
[2017-12-11 09:56:54] - Really surprised that bitcoin to usd was basically unchanged once options trading opened. Really thought we would see some volatility. Was kinda hoping for a big drop.
-Paul[2017-12-08 15:34:30] - daniel: i dunno. probably good, but i could see both sides. it probably depends on what happens next. ~a
[2017-12-08 15:10:11] - Daniel: Long run, I think it's good because it raises awareness and legitimizes it, even if there ends up being a bubble that bursts. Ideally, though, I think bitcoin as a currency would've benefited from a slower ramp up. Full disclosure, I know next to nothing.
-Paul[2017-12-08 15:01:45] - Ultimately do you guys think this run up is good or bad for bitcoin? Good because it increases exposure and amount of people who own? Bad because it makes it hard to use as currency and seems more bubble like? Neither? -Daniel
[2017-12-08 14:16:45] - Should be exciting this weekend to see what happens with bitcoin once the futures exchanges go live. -Paul
[2017-12-07 17:18:30] - paul: i dunno. ~a
[2017-12-07 17:04:10] - a: So I will try to get my printer fixed. Does it matter if it's a wireless printer? -Paul
[2017-12-07 17:01:50] - paul: yep, 20k bits ($20 at the time). whatevs, man. ~a
[2017-12-07 17:00:32] - a: At the same time, I should probably get my paper wallet sorted out first. -Paul
[2017-12-07 17:00:20] - a: Was our bet 0.02 btc? I'm wondering if there comes a time soon when I want to buy some more btc from you that we could "pre-settle" our bet at the same time (ie, I buy an extra 0.02 btc from you at the current rate but you keep it). Would that work? -Paul
[2017-12-07 16:10:47] - xpovos: fun little bit of trivia. both bip11 (multi-signature address) and bip16 (p2sh) were written by the same guy: gavin andresen. he's the guy that was strong-armed out of the initial development group. ~a
[2017-12-07 16:09:04] - a: Nifty, and multi-sig didn't require a hard fork. That's pretty important. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 16:07:38] - xpovos: what's more, these things are by no means required to be unchanging. they've added new address formats in the past. multi-signature addresses for instance, were added on after the initial release. same with p2sh. ~a
[2017-12-07 16:03:19] - xpovos: that's a statistical question. there are 160 bits in the bitcoin address (we ignore the checksum of course). so, enough addresses for every human on earth to have 2127 wallet addresses. if every human on earth had 1 *million* addresses *each*, there would still be a 1 in 1016 chance that a birthday attack collision would occur (1-e^(-(8e9*1e6)**2/(2*(2^160)))). ~a
[2017-12-07 15:31:04] - Even if there are 1T wallets, that might not be enough, people will have multiples, some will be lost/destroyed. Businesses may want to use thousands. So--the tech question is, what is the wallet limit. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 15:30:10] - a: I was thinking back to my wallet creation in 2015 and some of the technical limitations of the bitcoin system. Obviously the transaction limit is probably the most important right now (hence bitcoin cash) but I was thinking that there might be a wallet identity problem as well. I'm sure the number of possible wallets is HUGE, but it is not infinite. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 14:50:07] - aXpovos: Good points on the people speculating on USD. I wasn't even thinking about foreign governments or currency traders. Definitely right. -Paul
[2017-12-07 14:43:53] - xpovos: yep. ~a
[2017-12-07 14:42:25] - a: Related, anyone (basically, China) who hoards USD making the USD the reserve currency of the world is in essence speculating in USD. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 14:42:19] - paul: "I think there are the believers of it in terms of currency and then there are speculators who are in it mostly because of FOMO" i agree though. ~a
[2017-12-07 14:40:07] - paul: i agree for the most part. (people are buying usd as a speculative investment though. japan, china, ireland, brazil, etc would have very little reason to use usd as a medium of exchange: it's a speculation) ~a
[2017-12-07 14:37:12] - aXpovos: Nobody is buying USD as a speculative investment (I hope), but it still has value because it's a currency. I think it's safe to say that a lot of btc's value right now is based on speculation, but I think if all those people left, btc would still be worth maybe hundreds of usd to the currency believers. -Paul
[2017-12-07 14:36:12] - aXpovos: "What would bitcoin drop to if everyone who was in it only to speculate sold and left?" I think I took Daniel's question a little differently. With bitcoin, I think there are the believers of it in terms of currency and then there are speculators who are in it mostly because of FOMO. -Paul
[2017-12-07 14:35:36] - xpovos: i'm not sure how "backed" is defined. regardless, if you remove speculation . . . gold is useful in industry. silver is useful in medicine. they're also both used in jewelry. btc is useful as a medium of exchange, as a payment network, as a store of value. some details (with some bias). ~a
[2017-12-07 14:34:20] - a: I don't think we should change the bet. It was fair and square. I might've even suggested it. I was actually more concerned about the transaction costs of doing it in bitcoin. Isn't it getting to be ridiculous? I guess it still might be a small fraction of the bet. -Paul
[2017-12-07 14:34:01] - yeah, ok. so (say) $75/$24/$1
i'm not a fan of btg because of the pre-mine. ~a[2017-12-07 14:32:48] - a: I know I have a google doc somewhere that is keeping track of it, but I can't find it. I'm not forgetting about our self driving car bet! -Paul
[2017-12-07 14:24:52] - a: Your exclusion seems to indicate that BTG isn't a concern. Right now I'm inclined to agree, but it's tricky. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 14:22:51] - a: But at least most of those are backed by "something". It's more like asking that last one, what happens on the USD if the market loses all faith in "full faith and credit". USD is still worth something, but a whole hell of a lot less. I'd argue that's a much worse situation, though. Most people still have no faith in BTC. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 14:18:19] - daniel/xpovos: "What would bitcoin drop to if everyone who was in it only to speculate sold and left?" i'm not sure but it might depend on specifics on how they sold and when. millisecond timing would change the outcome in a huge way. the answer would be exactly as unknowable if you asked the question about gold. also silver. also rhodium. also platinum, palladium, iridium, petroleum, s&p500, dow, usd, etc etc. ~a
[2017-12-07 14:17:20] - a: It also makes total sense for you to be reducing your bitcoin exposure a bit at this point. The explosive growth means you should be taking some profits just as a matter of best practices -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 14:15:00] - a: Yeah, because the hard fork is... y'know... hard. Plus I'm still having trouble finding good software solutions for the hard forks. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 14:10:57] - xpovos: "So... I should put $100 in now or something" god, i don't know. i'm currently selling a portion of my stash. "I'd buy a bitcoin source that included all of the hard forks". in practice this means you'd (example) buy, say, $75 in btc and, say, $25 in bch. ~a
[2017-12-07 14:01:53] - paul: let's change the bet to be not denominated in bitcoin, but still paid out in bitcoin. ~a
[2017-12-07 14:01:44] - paul: you need to keep better track of your bets.
yes, yes, we have a bit denominated in bitcoin, but if you want, we can change the bet. i feel really bad that i'm basically winning the bet denominated in bitcoin because of bitcoin. and it was all just luck that it turned out this way. so many things could have turned out differently: i'm not some fucking psychic. ~a[2017-12-07 13:33:35] - Daniel: I think it probably is impossible. But assuming that all speculators were willing to essentially trash their investment and fire-sell it, Bitcoin would still probably be 1000/coin. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 13:30:32] - What would bitcoin drop to if everyone who was in it only to speculate sold and left? Is that scenario impossible? -Daniel
[2017-12-07 13:28:52] - a: Do we have some bet denominated in btc? That could be ridiculously large now... -Paul
[2017-12-07 13:28:48] - We were doing Christmas wishlists and I joked that I wanted "one whole bitcoin" and they laughed at me. It was 7000-9000 range at that point (Thanksgiving). Whoops. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 13:27:59] - So... I should put $100 in now or something. I can afford to lose that, but if this is really a 1000-bagger... even if it's only potentially. My biggest concern now is the hard fork issue. I still don't think that's resolved. So ideally I'd buy a bitcoin source that included all of the hard forks. That way I'm protected whichever way it goes. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 13:27:50] - Xpovos: Yup. Last I checked, it's at $16,000. It would have to be like a 75% drop just to go back to a few months ago. -Paul
[2017-12-07 13:26:38] - The crash is going to be ugly when it hits, but it could crash 50% right now and still be above that, right? -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 13:21:42] - Xpovos: That was not long ago at all, and already btc $5500 seems like a joke compared to where it is now. -Paul
[2017-12-07 13:21:25] - Xpovos: It's ridiculous. A podcast that I listen to did an episode on bitcoin a few months ago (at around $5500) which I clearly remember listening to at the time and thinking "Yeah, bitcoin is a little overheated, so I am going to wait for the pullback and maybe buy some more". -Paul
[2017-12-07 13:17:17] - Yeah, I think this is a turning point for bitcoin. It's reached puberty and is still alive and is unlikely to get killed off with a stupid accident (baring hard fork implosion) so while we can (and definitely will) see crashes in the prices, I think long term it's going up. We may look at 10,000 the way we look at $10 bitcoin now. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-07 12:08:12] - a: And the debt blocks look really scary (to me at least). -Paul
[2017-12-07 12:06:46] - a: Yeah, money gets really complicated really fast when it gets to things like central banks and exchange rates and fractional reserve banking and treasuries... -Paul
[2017-12-07 11:50:20] - paul: "How many of those btc are actually viable to be used as a currency?" that's fairly unknowable, we can only do rough estimations. still better than trying to figure out what the world M3 is at. i always like websites like these or these to help me understand of how little i actually know about money. ~a
[2017-12-07 11:22:21] - a: Geez, I think btc has gone up over $1k since we started talking about it this morning.
-Paul[2017-12-07 11:16:30] - a: So, yeah, I guess that was my real question: How many of those btc are actually viable to be used as a currency? Is it something like 20 million or could it be as small as 15 million? Seems like it could be easy for tons of them to get lost in the early going... -Paul
[2017-12-07 11:04:02] - it's probably a lot less, yes. satoshi hasn't moved his bits ever (and there are 1 million of them). there are millions more that have never moved. ~a
[2017-12-07 10:55:59] - "I assume it's not something easily memorizable like my 12 words" right. you can (should) add a simple/short "password" to this (i can explain why a short password is ok). "Is the best way to just print like a dozen copies?" i've only printed two copies, but i've considered making a third. i can definitely go into the nitty-gritty when i get there though. have a working printer and a working computer.
~a[2017-12-07 10:52:04] - a: Oh, and another random btc question: When somebody has their wallet on their hard drive with no backup and their hard drive crashes, I know those btc are lost to them, but it's essentially lost to everybody forever, right? So the theoretical 21 million maximum of btc in circulation is probably a little less? -Paul
[2017-12-07 10:42:18] - a: Also, while thinking about my next round of stock picks, I realized my original picks were not well diversified at all. Could make the argument 4 are ecommerce stocks! -Paul
[2017-12-07 10:37:28] - a: We do, but it currently has some issues printing. So I guess priority #1 is to get that fixed... I know I'm going to want multiple copies of this paper wallet (I assume it's not something easily memorizable like my 12 words). Is the best way to just print like a dozen copies? Is it considered bad to put a copy on a usb stick? -Paul
[2017-12-07 09:55:48] - oops . . . actually . . . what we really need is a printer, and i don't have one of those. you have one i assume. ~a
[2017-12-07 08:46:06] - paul: sure, i can bike over any time. i'm currently free after work on the 13th, 15th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd. you're also invited over here if you have a laptop. and if you don't . . . i could always use the bike ride. ~a
[2017-12-07 07:22:19] - a: I think I'm going to have to have you over sometime soon to teach me how to put my btc into a paper wallet before it gets to $500k per btc... -Paul
[2017-12-06 10:52:54] - Any solution that reduces my weekly commute time (one-way) to less than 150 minutes/week and my costs to less than $25 is going to be acceptable. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-06 10:52:05] - If there is zero traffic, my commute takes 35-45 minutes and costs me $3-$5. If there is bad traffic my commute takes 90-120 minutes and costs me $5-$10. Lowering traffic congestion, then, saves me both time and money, so it's something that is doubly appealing. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-06 10:50:38] - I can use my commute as an example. I care most about time. I want my commute to take less time. I also care about expense. My commute could take less time, but I would have to pay significantly more to make that happen, either through toll roads, buying a different/more-expensive house closer to my work, or paying for an alternate commute methodology (charter helicopter?) -- Xpovos
[2017-12-06 10:26:08] - a: Maybe I misunderstood your "get more people to work" line, but I didn't think that would count people who changed jobs or changed their commute method (I suppose they could be covered by lower commute times). -Paul
[2017-12-06 10:08:48] - paul: "we're just completely ignoring those extra people who drive when we expand roads as if they're unimportant" you might want to read my mission statement again. it doesn't *completely* ignore those extra people. it doesn't even *partially* ignore those extra people. in fact, the opposite of that. it ignore-antonym's them. it counts them? all of them. ~a
[2017-12-06 09:52:27] - a: Because those extra miles driven presumably improve somebody's life in some way. Maybe it's somebody getting a better job they wouldn't consider before or another person being able to drive instead of take taking public transit or maybe it's just more people moving into the city where they want to live. -Paul
[2017-12-06 09:51:19] - a: I think yours is too narrow (although I agree that mine is unquantifiable). My problem is that we're just completely ignoring those extra people who drive when we expand roads as if they're unimportant. I don't think it's right to say that expanding roads doesn't solve the problem because we still have traffic... -Paul
[2017-12-05 14:26:38] - paul: so, you don't agree with my mission statement? the reason i ask is your mission statement is completely and totally unquantifiable. ~a
[2017-12-05 14:18:28] - So my mission statement is to just improve people's quality of life. Maybe to me that means reducing commute times. Maybe for my neighbor it means increasing road capacity so he can drive into work instead of taking the bus or metro. Maybe for my other neighbor it means making it even possible for him to get a job in DC. -Paul
[2017-12-05 14:16:28] - I would analogize it to a major city having 10 taxi cabs. Wait times are horrible. So the city doubles the taxi cabs to 20. Wait times are still horrible because that's still an insufficient amount that doesn't meet demand. -Paul
[2017-12-05 14:15:50] - I think these studies that show that increasing lanes doesn't help is because there is so much pent up demand for more road capacity that just adding an extra lane doesn't work. -Paul
[2017-12-05 14:14:13] - aDaniel: I have to run to a doctor's appointment, so I unfortunately can't continue this conversation today, but I don't even necessarily think it's a matter of mission statement. I think if we somehow magically doubled road capacity everywhere in Northern Virginia then it would make commute times go down. -Paul
[2017-12-05 14:12:30] - a: Only toll road. No HOV. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 13:49:33] - daniel: the one in austin, is it like our new lanes where you can go for free if you have hov? or like the dulles road where (some lanes) they combine hov and toll? ~a
[2017-12-05 13:40:04] - a: San Antonio doesn't really use toll roads. Austin put in a big one semi-recently (within last three years) that goes around the city because the freeway that went north/south through the city got very congested. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 13:38:06] - daniel: do you have toll roads near you now? ~a
[2017-12-05 13:37:02] - daniel/paul/xpovos: yeah. so, let's all agree on a mission statement: the goal is to get more people to work *and* lower commute times. both . . . equally? we can baseline on 2013: before 495/66/95 hot lanes. all agreed? ~a
[2017-12-05 13:01:10] - '
[2017-12-05 13:00:28] - Paul: I think its a question of mission statement. If the goal is to let more people drive then yes more lanes accomplish that. If the goal is to reduce traffic / commute times I don't think lanes accomplish that. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 12:57:46] - paul: Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. I agree that more lanes would let more people drive. I just don't think it would make traffic go away. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 12:57:18] - a: Normally in a market environment, a sign of demand outstripping supply signals businesses to increase demand to meet supply. Instead, we have the government being presented with clear signs of demand outstripping supply and instead they shrug and say providing more supply won't fix the problem. -Paul
[2017-12-05 12:56:50] - xpovos: i agree. hoover dam cost $5b (inflation adjusted). virginia hot lanes road widening + bridges construction, cost $1b (inflation adjusted). close in price, so that's an apt comparison. i was surprised, i expected hoover dam to be orders of magnitude more expensive. ~a
[2017-12-05 12:55:13] - a: But I stand by my disagreement that bigger roads won't solve the problem. Sure, adding a lane or two might not make traffic go away, but it will mean more people can do what they apparently want to do (ie, drive). -Paul
prev <-> next