prev <-> next
[2018-01-31 18:03:11] - a: I'm pro having a child outside of marriage, but "not" ok with sex outside of marriage. Shit happens. Shit includes, but is not limited to rape, untimely death of husband/boyfriend, terrible decision one-night-stand. It happened, now we get to deal with it. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 17:03:07] - xpovos: i just realized that there's a fourth section of republicans we haven't considered. the ones that are ok with having a child outside of marriage, but *not* ok with sex outside of marriage! these people are pro ivf? or pro immaculate-conception?
~a[2018-01-31 16:59:49] - xpovos: "that's prolife. Disown her, make sure she and her kid have no resources" yep. wtf man. that sucks. ~a
[2018-01-31 16:59:24] - xpovos: yeah, i think i understand your point. but i think, maybe, the respondents to the survey (~10% of them) hadn't thought that scenario through completely. alternatively, those 10% are ok with abortion? ~a
[2018-01-31 16:32:52] - slug?! woo! i've always wanted to try that. ~a
[2018-01-31 16:32:47] - "1) Sex had better not result in pregnancy outside of marriage"... this presumes birth control, but birth control is never a guarantee, except something like a hysterectomy. Anyway, I'll continue later, if you care for it. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 16:31:56] - a: No. Also, I'll need to continue this later, I need to go drive a carpool. The short version is that my statement holds (in my view) regardless of the view of birth control, though I recognize your point, I think it is simply missing the mark. It's wrapped up in my first statement,
[2018-01-31 16:30:44] - xpovos: yeah, except only 13% of republicans thought *all* birth control was immoral (not just otc). i.e. birth control != abortion. you thought the numbers would be the same? ~a
[2018-01-31 16:28:58] - a: If having the baby is worse than the act that produces it, then you are going to wind up in a pro-abortion position. Also, most of the situations I'm talking about anecdotally the birth control is also immoral so, largely moot. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 16:28:15] - xpovos: gallup link from 2012 (yes, i rounded. the actual numbers are 65-58, which is admittedly closer than 70-60). ~a
[2018-01-31 16:25:27] - xpovos: "Apparently Republicans are pro-abortion, because actually having the baby is worse than having the sex." doesn't that assume there is no birth control (otc or otherwise)? or i guess it assumes that everyone is 100% rational or that birth control works 100% of the time? ~a
[2018-01-31 16:25:07] - This is what turns a conservative woman to abortion and intense shame. The mental trauma is amazingly bad. But nope, our principles are more important. Absolute fuckers. Every one of them. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 16:24:23] - Obviously, that is assinine. I'm assuming you sourced it, though, and the sad part is that I have absolutely no reason to doubt it. I've had plenty of conversations with the hypocrites of the right about exactly this. I have more anecdotes than I care to admit about young girls being disowned by their parents for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Yeah, that's prolife. Disown her, make sure she and her kid have no resources. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 16:22:34] - a: I'm... I'm just going to pick this statistic a little, because it's bothering me. 70% of [] think having a child outside of marriage is immoral. 60% think having sex outside of marriage is immoral. So this leads me to two conclusions. 1) Sex had better not result in pregnancy outside of marriage, otherwise it just got ~10% worse. 2) Apparently Republicans are pro-abortion, because actually having the baby is worse than having the sex.
[2018-01-31 16:12:39] - mig: in case you think i'm just blowing smoke, 70% of republicans think having a child outside of marriage is immoral. 60% think having sex outside of marriage is immoral. and that's for adults. the answers regarding children would likely be higher. ~a
[2018-01-31 15:44:05] - "they do know that moving towards allowing birth control OTC is kind of a republican/libertarian idea, right?" haha, come on. that jindal scenario is a great story, and it's an interesting read. but be serious, you can't possibly think that even like 10% of registered republicans are pro-otc birth control. their daughters . . . just going up and buying birth control without talking to them? they'd all collectively have a conniption. ~a
[2018-01-31 15:36:15] - “But I am worried that with a Congress obsessed with overturning a law that protects women from being charged more for basic care, we need to be ready to fight back and say hands off D.C.†they do know that moving towards allowing birth control OTC is kind of a republican/libertarian idea, right? - mig
[2018-01-31 15:13:34] - birth control without a prescription in dc. omg, wow. this should be interesting. the text. i didn't notice anything about a minimum age, or that the purchaser had to be an adult? ~a
[2018-01-31 14:18:28] - xpovos: the fee part is creative for sure, but I'm pretty sure it won't get around the underlying constitutional problems. - mig
[2018-01-31 12:53:17] - mig: Probably why the fee is the alternative. Government can get away with a lot when it calls it a fee, apparently. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 12:20:31] - a: its constitutionally problematic as well. I'm pretty sure courts have struck down mandatory internet filter laws on more than one occasion. - mig
[2018-01-31 11:00:49] - how does making pornography less accessible reduce sex trafficking? among other obvious questions . . . like does the $20 fee allow me to then sex traffic? so crazy, i hope this bill doesn't pass. it makes no sense. ~a
[2018-01-31 10:59:35] - Daniel: 38% is self-directed by me into individual stocks and 1% is either a rounding error or cash holdings or a little of both.
-Paul[2018-01-31 10:58:37] - Daniel: Okay, so I just re-ran the numbers. Assuming "retirement fund" means my traditional IRA (which are 401(k) accounts from previous jobs that I rolled over) + Roth IRA + current 401(k), then 61% of that money is invested in Vanguard funds (I believe all are indexes of various types). -Paul
[2018-01-31 10:41:20] - daniel: i had reported 95% earlier (but only if you ignore currencies: if you don't the percentage is a little lower). ~a
[2018-01-31 10:40:23] - daniel: paul had said earlier 2-1 (his indexes to self-invested ratio). in other words, ~66% in indexes. ~a
[2018-01-31 10:38:01] - Paul: How much of your retirement fund is in indexes? -Daniel
[2018-01-31 10:31:29] - mig: we're not quite down to pre-2001 levels (which actually were the lowest since pre-ww2) but we are close. hopefully the state of the union doesn't actually change this trend, but you know republicans. ~a
[2018-01-31 10:30:55] - Daniel: "Still skeptical of selling stock advice" *Points at scoreboard* 56% to 20%
-Paul[2018-01-31 10:30:09] - mig: And somehow Canada hasn't conquered us yet. -Paul
[2018-01-31 10:28:06] - mig: graph. sequester took effect in 2013-03. ~a
[2018-01-31 10:26:04] - mig: yes afaik. ~a
[2018-01-31 10:19:13] - Paul: I think given the more correct definition of index then my shady comment is probably less applicable. Still skeptical of selling stock advice but the index part is apparently more fair than I thought. -Daniel
[2018-01-31 10:13:04] - a: the defense sequester has been in effect all this time? - mig
[2018-01-30 22:15:41] - a: If it means increasing spending on the military, then it seems like an incredibly bad idea (although not surprising, given Trump's rhetoric and complete lack of caring about cutting spending). -Paul
[2018-01-30 22:09:43] - paul: (in the state of the union) trump just said he was going to end the defense sequester. i had remember you had said lots about the sequester. thoughts on this change? ~a
[2018-01-30 20:49:40] - a: "The Fool 100 is a new market-cap weighted index that measures the performance of The Motley Fool’s 100 largest investment ideas." It's not hand-picking the best recommendations from the Fool, it's taking the 100 largest investment ideas, even the bad ones. -Paul
[2018-01-30 20:44:14] - a: Right, but contrary to what you're implying (and maybe even what Daniel believes of the shady company I work for), the purpose of the index isn't to, with the benefit of hindsight, create the best performing group of stocks over the past 10 years or whatever. -Paul
[2018-01-30 17:03:44] - paul: i think i can beat the motley fool's index with hindsight
~a[2018-01-30 16:44:14] - Daniel: Indexes sound like they are designed to try to track something, even if that something is as nebulous as "The Motley Fool's general stock recommendations" or even non-stock based like the price of gold or bitcoin. -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:43:14] - Daniel: Yeah, I honestly, don't necessarily disagree with you as much as it might sound. Index vs not index is much more confusing and less defined than I thought. It sounds like almost anything can be called an index. Honestly, I think the difference is the intent behind it (and I know that's a murky word). -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:38:35] - daniel: "good indexes vs bad indexes" i agree with that. i think most people who talk about "index investing" are referring to the s&p500, or the russell2000/3000, or something similar. i rarely hear about "index investing" using the dow or the nasdaq
~a[2018-01-30 16:37:39] - Algorithmic trading is a set of laid out criteria isn't it if a program is executing it? I'm not sure enough how that works though. This is leading me down a rabbit hole of defining things in my head
-Daniel[2018-01-30 16:36:13] - I guess in my head indexes should have less opinion and more laid out criteria and that determines what you invest in. That appears to be wrong but then I guess I would move to a position of good indexes vs bad indexes. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:34:30] - Paul: The morning star thing seems maybe better? Depends on how laid out the criteria are. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:31:32] - hell you can have a dollar index. and an inverse dollar index. ~a
[2018-01-30 16:30:03] - daniel: if it matters, i've seen the word "index" used in *very* different contexts. like a "mortgage index". or a "t-bill index". these aren't equities. they won't go up (about) 10% per year. they follow a very very different type of thing. ~a
[2018-01-30 16:29:05] - Maybe a is right that the only difference is whether you actually take money or not. It just feels funny to me cause then I think every mutual fund in existence is tracking some implied index which is weird but maybe technically correct thought. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:27:46] - Daniel: That sounds a lot like the same kind of "active management" you don't like with the Fool 100. -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:27:22] - Paul: I mean thats what every active manager and financial salesmen ever has said... -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:27:20] - Daniel: https://corporate.morningstar.com/US/asp/subject.aspx?page=2649&filter=GlobalEquity&xmlfile=2954.xml What do you think of this index? Is it an index? "Morningstar uses a structured review process to build each index, screening for countries with a high level of transparency, market regulation, and operational efficiency, as well as the absence of broad-based investment restrictions." -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:27:17] - daniel: investopedia. i think (according to this definition) it has to be a fund to be active management. ~a
[2018-01-30 16:25:36] - Daniel: But they're pretty upfront everywhere about how the "index" (whether you think it should be called that or not) works. Also, if history is any indication (and yes, I'm well aware of the regular disclaimer), the index will beat the market, so how harmful can the trickery be?
-Paul[2018-01-30 16:23:28] - 0% fee would be a good price to pay for it though I suppose. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:23:06] - Its active management if someone is picking things to invest in in order to beat an index. Thats my understanding of the definition though clearly I can be wrong
-Daniel[2018-01-30 16:18:39] - daniel: i completely agree that there should be sub-classes of indexes. it's not the fool's fault, though, if you're misusing the term. ~a
[2018-01-30 16:17:19] - daniel: is it active management if there's a 0% fee?
~a[2018-01-30 16:16:48] - But I think of most financial organizations that way so I guess its not a surprise from me. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:16:24] - So kind of makes me think of the Fool as more a shady financial organization now
-Daniel[2018-01-30 16:16:06] - Well at best in my head it seems deceptive in order to take advantage of someone who has heard that indexing is good but doesn't really understand enough to know why. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:15:50] - a: Well, it's hard to launch something with any timeliness if you need to wait 10 years for results.
They fully admit it right there, though. -Paul[2018-01-30 16:15:22] - Daniel: All I will say is that I'm pretty sure it got pretty thoroughly vetted by lawyers and had to run through regulators, so I'm sure if calling it an index was horribly off, they wouldn't have done it. -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:15:15] - It seems to undermine what the meaning of index fund was in my head. Given this definition I think every single mutual fund is an index fund. They just seek to replicate the index of the funds the manager thinks are best. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:14:15] - But maybe I'm conflating passive and index. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:14:10] - From my 5 minutes of searching, I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a very clear distinction between index funds and mutual funds, and I can see why Daniel would argue that the Fool 100 is a mutual fund and not an index. -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:13:56] - Hmm perhaps. I think calling it an index seems disingenuous though if its just a mask for active management by another name. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:13:16] - paul: "All performance presented prior to the index inception date is back-tested performance. Back-tested performance is not actual performance, but is hypothetical, and was derived from the retroactive application of the index methodology with the benefit of hindsight" seems a little unfair
~a[2018-01-30 16:11:07] - daniel: check my source. there's nothing about a well-defined inclusion criteria. ~a
[2018-01-30 16:10:37] - Paul: So is every mutual fund an index of the funds the manager likes? -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:10:05] - a: Right but for all of those you can lay out a criteria. The fool doesn't have one other than companies we like. I don't know what companies they like. I do know what companies are tech companies or crypto companies etc. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:10:01] - Daniel: So... is the Dow index not an index then? -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:09:40] - so by "!= index" you meant " == stupid index"?
~a[2018-01-30 16:09:14] - Paul: The dow index is a stupid index for precisely that reason. I think of an index as every company that meets criteria X where the index is then the X index. If your index is funds you choose as good companies thats not an index I can replicate. Its just a managed fund run by you. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 16:08:09] - source ~a
[2018-01-30 16:07:44] - daniel: i don't agree. the difference between an index and a mutual fund is not whether the inclusion criteria is complicated or simple. the difference is whether they accept the money from you directly (mutual fund) or if they just publish the results of a reproducible analysis (index). for instance you can have a bitcoin index. or a crypto-currency index. or a tech-sector index. ~a
[2018-01-30 16:06:15] - Daniel: What's your definition of an index? How is that different from the (as far as I know) arbitrary companies that make up the Dow index? -Paul
[2018-01-30 16:04:11] - Paul: I don't think thats an index. Thats just a rebranded mutual fund idea. "This means that a company can only be included in the Fool 100 after undergoing a painstaking selection and review process by our team of analysts." != index -Daniel
[2018-01-30 15:46:30] - a: I admit to not knowing a ton about how CDLs work, but I see no reason for that particular logical path to be more true than "there were no charged, but he still lost his CDL." I simple have no evidence either way. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 14:45:55] - xpovos: he won't lose his CDL. there were no charges. ~a
[2018-01-30 14:40:24] - xpovos: yeah exactly. i wouldn't be surprised or upset to learn that this trucker lost his job over the incident, especially if it turns out they used concave mirrors and he just didn't know how they worked, or was in too much of a hurry to check them or something like that - aaron
[2018-01-30 14:30:09] - aaron: Instead of jail, how about just losing that job where the responsibility existed? -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 14:24:01] - but i'd probably want our company to use a different SCM system - aaron
[2018-01-30 14:23:13] - a: to clarify i don't think it means "the cop wasn't at fault" or "the cop did nothing wrong" just that they're innocent of a crime. i'm lucky because i can't accidentally kill someone at my job. if giving the wrong arguments to a git command had a 1% chance of killing a cyclist i'd still feel really guilty and i would have done something wrong but i wouldn't want to go to jail for being bad at my job - aaron
[2018-01-30 14:15:13] - a: and similarly, i would fault the system and the laws and police protocol and i would say, hey, maybe the police (as a force) shouldn't show up guns drawn based on anonymous phone calls. and if one particular cop had bad hand-eye coordination or bad vision and legitimately thought a cell phone was a gun, then that cop should probably not be a cop. but he shouldn't be in jail - aaron
[2018-01-30 14:14:16] - a: "he wasn't charged -> therefore he's innocent" ... "would you feel this way in the cop shooting indecent?" yes, if a cop shows up to someone's house and police protocol dictates they're supposed to have their guns drawn and loaded, and if nine other cops there have their gun drawn and loaded, i wouldn't pick on one particular cop and say "YOU, you broke the law" because again, which law? - aaron
[2018-01-30 14:05:24] - But, similar to Daniel, if I'm on the jury, or I suppose more accurately right now, the grand jury, I'm not sure I could approve going forward with a trial or conviction. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 14:04:41] - This truck driver is almost certainly guilty of vehicular manslaughter. I'd feel a lot better about things if he lost his CDL. That seems like a fair punishment to him, even if it fails to bring justice for the victim. It's a super sucky situation, but at a minimum he seems to have not behaved in a way a professional driver should have (leaving the scene). -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 14:03:26] - I run into that as a problem on a regular basis for my work, we have an arrest for a crime that is serious, but then it never gets prosecuted. 90%+ of the time, I'm pretty sure the person actually did the crime. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 14:02:37] - https://www.fool100.com/performance/ And here's the performance over time. -Paul
[2018-01-30 14:02:34] - a: No charges absolutely does not mean innocent. It means insufficient evidence to go through the expense of legal proceedings where the outcome is uncertain. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 14:02:06] - https://www.fool100.com/ Instead, let's talk about this! The Fool has an index fund. -Paul
[2018-01-30 14:01:36] - a: Yeah, well, running a red light that was red for awhile seems like a different league than what happened here. Also, I can get into all the stories of pedestrians who have walked in front of my moving car without a crosswalk (or a "do not walk" sign was flashing) but I don't want to get into that right now.
-Paul[2018-01-30 13:36:58] - once i realized her light was in fact still red . . . and realized that i was going to be able to stop just outside her direction of travel . . . then i started yelling at her. i was so mad. ~a
[2018-01-30 13:35:56] - one time i had to stop and look up at her light. in the split second before i was almost run over, i was thinking, are all of the lights green? ~a
[2018-01-30 13:34:41] - i guess you're right, i shouldn't be trying to divine their intentions. but they might have well had their eyes closed. these lights had both been red for a very long time. ~a
[2018-01-30 13:33:34] - sorry i was being sarcastic. they were both running a red light. like . . . both of them the light had been red for a long while. i'm pretty sure they didn't see me or the light. (one of them may have been intentionally running a red light, i'm not sure. the other . . . jesus i have no idea, i think she just didn't see a light at all). ~a
[2018-01-30 13:30:54] - a: "they were a little too comfortable" Why do you say that? I ask because I can't imagine how you can divine their intentions like that. -Paul
[2018-01-30 13:29:09] - "always being super uncomfortable driving around cyclists on the road". paul, the two times recently i had cars that almost crushed me, they weren't uncomfortable about it at all. they were a little too comfortable. ~a
[2018-01-30 13:28:24] - a: And if I just happened to be taking a right turn or glancing at my radio or anything relatively innocuous like that... I could see something back being possible. -Paul
[2018-01-30 13:27:36] - a: I see things from the driver's perspective here, and I know as a driver, I'm terrified of accidentally running over pedestrians or cyclists because it seems like it would be so easy to happen. I won't say I've come close, but I've definitely had moments where I'm like, "Holy crap, where did that pedestrian come from!?" -Paul
[2018-01-30 13:26:22] - a: "maybe i feel so strongly about this case because i've been almost ended a few times by car drivers" And I'm probably biased in the other direction, having rarely ridden bikes on roads and always being super uncomfortable driving around cyclists on the road. -Paul
[2018-01-30 13:25:42] - a: Your examples with police shootings, in most of those cases I know a lot more about them (thanks to media coverage). So I probably know 80% as much as the prosecutors as opposed to this case, where I probably know 20% as much. -Paul
[2018-01-30 13:24:28] - a: I think you're attributing more certainty to my stance than is warranted. I'm perfectly willing to believe he could be guilty, but what I DO know is that I don't even remotely know all the facts and I'm almost certain that the person in charge of bringing charges has more facts than I do. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:55:20] - there weren't videos either. i'd be entirely his word against nobody. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:54:42] - maybe i feel so strongly about this case because i've been almost ended a few times by car drivers. my blood rate rises and my breath quickens every time. saliva tastes acidic. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:50:18] - i feel like we could easily do away with 90% of the judicial system if this was true. we'd just indict people and then a sentence could be carried out. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:48:59] - paul: "But the person who presumably knows most of the facts didn't press charges" you, aaron, and andrew have all used this fact (which i don't doubt) to suggest something more: he wasn't charged -> therefore he's innocent. i'm pretty sure i don't follow that logic. would you feel this way in the cop shooting indecent? if nobody is charged, everybody is innocent? ~a
[2018-01-30 12:37:32] - a: I'm not sure how whether or not the cyclist was moving is relevant. Accidents can easily happen with stationary people. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:35:08] - a: Yes, technically they might've been breaking the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the result (death) was warranted. Same thing here. Maybe the driver broke then law, but that doesn't automatically make the driver culpable in my eyes. Maybe he is. I don't know. But the person who presumably knows most of the facts didn't press charges. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:34:46] - paul: "I think if a non-negligent hits a non-negligent with their car and kills them, it doesn't automatically mean the first non-negligent should be charged and convicted" one of the parties wasn't moving. if i stop moving to avoid an accident, and you hit me while i'm not moving, come on why are we even discussing this? ~a
[2018-01-30 12:33:19] - a: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killed-castile-pot-smell-made-fear-life-article-1.3265188 Because I love analogies, I think of when people defend cops who kill people by saying that the killed person was smoking marijuana or not obeying the cops (ie, breaking the law). -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:32:07] - also suffolk county ~a
[2018-01-30 12:31:00] - a: So the question is, just how non-negligent (if at all) was the truck driver. I have no idea, but I think just saying that he broke a law is not enough to say he was negligent in the case of this accident. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:30:19] - a: "hitting a non-negligent with your car, and killing them, that's illegal and egregious" I guess this is the more telling quote. I think if a non-negligent hits a non-negligent with their car and kills them, it doesn't automatically mean the first non-negligent should be charged and convicted. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:28:22] - a: I have no idea if this situation is like this, but it sounds very possible (especially if charges weren't brought up). -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:27:50] - a: "hitting someone with your car is illegal" I suspect this is where we differ in terms of assigning blame. I believe there are scenarios where person A runs over person B and neither side is grossly negligent and therefore I wouldn't assign a great deal of blame (if any) to person A. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:14:37] - paul: depends on which law we're talking about. (1) right-hook is annoying, but not egregious. especially if enough space is given that i can slam on the breaks or swerve. (2) leaving the scene of a fatal car accident. that's pretty egregious. (3) believe it or not, hitting someone with your car is illegal (*if* nobody else is grossly negligent). hitting a non-negligent with your car, and killing them, that's illegal and egregious. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:08:37] - a: I haven't because (A) I don't know the laws and (B) I don't know if he broke them. "he broke laws while infringing on another persons rights" Are you saying this just because his breaking of the law ended up leaving somebody dead? Was the law he broke that egregious? Or was it simply the outcome that was bad? -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:07:09] - a: Understood that you didn't say that, I was more explaining my perspective than refuting yours. Again, with the caveat that I don't think we know all the fact involved, I think it's entirely possible that this accident is something like 70% tragic accident and 30% somebody's fault. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:05:11] - "breaking the law doesn't immediately signal blame to me" i'm pretty sure you, aaron, and daniel, have yet to admit any laws were broken. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:04:22] - paul: i break laws too. but this is not at all relevant. he broke some laws that probably should see the light of a courtroom. he broke laws while infringing on another persons rights. some pretty fundamental rights. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:03:38] - a: Sure, if I'm taking left turns on red with my eyes closed and speeding and hit somebody, that seems relevant. But breaking the law doesn't immediately signal blame to me. There has to be a measure of irresponsibility. It's the difference between not turning lights on in the rain during a bright day and doing it at night. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:02:12] - "deserves all the blame" i'm pretty sure i never said that. or at least i agree that the logic doesn't follow. ~a
[2018-01-30 12:01:55] - a: This is the same thing we talk about all the time. Driving is complicated. There's a lot of stuff going on and a lot of multi-tasking required that I honestly don't think humans are good at. I think it's impossible for people to drive perfectly (and obey all the laws) all the time. -Paul
[2018-01-30 12:00:41] - a: To me, illegality <> blame all the time (even if the law might disagree). I'm 100% sure I break the law every single day when driving. Sometimes I go over the speed limit. Sometimes I don't come to a complete stop at stop signs. I probably even turn right on red when I'm technically not allowed (which seems relevant here). -Paul
[2018-01-30 11:59:28] - a: But where it was otherwise light enough to see clearly, and they happened to get into an accident, I don't think just because they broke the law (a law they might not even know about), that it follows that all of the blame should fall on them. -Paul
[2018-01-30 11:58:45] - a: Not sure which were directed at me, but I generally don't think that just because somebody breaks a law and then something bad happens, it means they deserves all the blame. I think it's technically illegal to drive without headlights on when it is raining. If somebody was driving without their headlights on in the rain.. -Paul
[2018-01-30 11:49:31] - sorry some of those were to Paul. stupid same color. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:37:44] - daniel: running over a curb is fine. not noticing that you ran over a curb is a different line. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:37:15] - daniel: so whether or not they noticed if they killed someone or not doesn't change it's legality. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:36:19] - daniel: "Sometimes accidents happen" of course i don't doubt this is a shitty scenario. but sometimes during these accidents laws are broken. i can think of three. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:35:34] - a: I've never driven an 18 wheeler before, so I can't say if it should be obvious or not. I could easily see how the driver might've thought they just ran over a curb, though. I've seen 18 wheelers do that fairly often. -Paul
[2018-01-30 11:34:45] - a: That's why that was my first question. To me, the biggest unknown is whether or not this person knew they ran over somebody. If they knew, then obviously leaving the scene is huge. If they didn't, then I find it hard to blame them for leaving the scene of a crime they didn't know existed. -Paul
[2018-01-30 11:33:19] - I think if we could prove that he noticed and left I would convict on that charge. But in the absence of proof / testimony / something I think its plausible he didn't notice. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 11:32:40] - Sometimes accidents happen. -Daniel
[2018-01-30 11:32:22] - daniel: it doesn't matter that he didn't try to take her to the hospital? or try to call an ambulance? xpovos it sounds like (at least) was swayed by that viewpoint. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:31:05] - yeah np. it's cool i guess. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:29:11] - a: Late to the party but if charges were brought and I was on the jury I'm not sure I would vote to convict. Sorry Adrian! -Daniel
[2018-01-30 11:21:35] - aaron: if you don't, and you drive off without taking the kid to the hospital, i hope your sentence is just and fair. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:18:47] - aaron: there's a nonzero chance of anything, i don't think that's the line. if you hit a child with your car, you will notice, and you will take that kid to the hospital. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:17:31] - a: i already, by some definitions drive a car that's unsafe. every time i back out of a parking spot there's a nonzero chance there's a child behind my car, and i don't have backup cameras because my car predates backup camera laws - aaron
[2018-01-30 11:14:59] - "what laws and safety precautions would prevent this" i think enforcing the laws we already have would be a great start. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:12:35] - aaron: you might be confusing the cab with the cargo. i'm sure not all truck drivers own their cabs, but regardless it's irrelevant. if a company demands that a driver uses unsafe equipment, he's still responsible for getting behind the wheel. i won't drive a rental car that's unsafe, would you? ~a
[2018-01-30 11:11:57] - a: maybe it's convex mirrors, smaller trucks or side-view cameras, or just laws banning trucks from certain roads. or maybe it's something crazy we don't have yet like self-driving trucks or object-recognition that blinks up a warning - aaron
[2018-01-30 11:10:20] - a: so i guess until i get more information my position is like paul's, that it's a really unfortunate accident which **could** have been avoided by either party, but it places an unreasonable expectation on both of them. and i think the question isn't, "how could the driver be so negligent" but, "what laws and safety precautious would prevent this" - aaron
[2018-01-30 11:08:44] - a: i don't think truckers are usually responsible for installing safety equipment on their own truck... is that normal? that seems weird. i agree it could be negligent to drive without it, but if so that's on the company (or possibly on the government for failing to provide a reasonable minimum safety standard for trucks) - aaron
[2018-01-30 11:04:34] - aaron: lots of people are pretty pissed at dan conley. i'm not the only one. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:03:55] - a: i don't know what law he broke but i guess if you think of one you should contact suffolk county district attorney dan conley, since apparently he couldn't think of one either and i'm sure he's way better at this stuff than i am - aaron
[2018-01-30 11:02:28] - aaron: ok, i'll stipulate to all of your facts. it's still not enough. if he couldn't see all four of his wheels (all four of the corners), reasonably, with the equipment he had at the time, then he should have changed his equipment. failing to do so, could cause a fatal accident. if such a fatal accident happens, he is culpable. ~a
[2018-01-30 11:00:45] - a: as far as "not seeing her after he ran her over," i don't know if it's the safe way to make a right turn; but the way I make a right turn is to check my mirrors, check the crosswalks, and then pay very close attention to what's in front of my car as i turn. i'm guessing that's where the trucker was looking too; it seems unintuitive for him to have an eagle-eye on his right rear view mirror during the turn, but maybe i'm wrong - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:58:46] - a: you're citing this all fact, so i'll counter your facts with some different facts. he didn't see her in his mirror because she wasn't visible in any of his mirrors; he checked all of them repeatedly. his 18-wheeler didn't have a convex mirror because he was contracted in vermont which lacks any such ordinance mandating convex mirrors - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:57:54] - a: I think it likely that other motorists would have seen the accident and been trying furiously to alert the truck driver, so even if he failed to notice the accident, I'm not going to let him skate on the "leaving the scene" issue. I believe I am (mostly) with you on that. I am probably less with you on some of the other elements. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 10:54:35] - aaron: but i asked you the question. you seriously can't think of one law the driver broke? one law other than the one you didn't know about? ~a
[2018-01-30 10:53:53] - aaron: more importantly, i'll hazard a guess that the law about leaving the scene of an accident doesn't have provisions for whether you noticed that you ran over anyone or not. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:52:54] - aaron: well this is my opinion, and not fact, but: you can't run over something larger than the size of a human and not notice. it's like running over a curb, but twice as tall. even an 18 wheeler will have their body turned enough to notice something went wrong. also, he's able to see all of his wheels in his mirrors: his wheels are clearly having a major problem clearing the female. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:51:11] - aaron: it's not a grey area because the driver and the bicyclist are next to each-other for a while. he didn't see her in his mirrors *not* because he couldn't, but because he didn't check: most 18-wheelers will have a convex mirror. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:51:02] - a: additionally you cite the hit and run that he didn't stop after an accident, but you haven't explained how he could have known. and the "didn't check his convex mirror" thing which -- we don't even know if he had a convex mirror - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:49:30] - a: which law did the truck driver break? you cited the "don't make a right turn after passing a cyclist" but the intent of the law appears to be to cover "right hooks" where you pass a cyclist and make a right turn in front of them a moment later; i would think if you haven't seen the cyclist for over a minute that's more of a grey area - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:47:38] - a: Also, I think it's entirely possible that sometimes when it comes to driving, there are true tragic accidents where it's hard to blame any specific party for what happened. -Paul
[2018-01-30 10:46:12] - a: yeah, i have no idea. just the stuff i learned on driver's ed and from other accident videos and stuff. apparently laws mandating convex mirrors are state by state. massachusetts enacted a law in 2014 but it doesn't affect trucks travelling in from out of state. who knows what kinds of mirrors the truck had - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:46:01] - a: I didn't read the article, and I know next to nothing about this specific incident, so full disclosure there. But from what I am reading here, it sounds to me like you're expecting perfect behavior from the truck driver in terms of knowing and following a seemingly non-obvious driving law of an individual state while ignoring a more general rule of the road that the cyclist broke. -Paul
[2018-01-30 10:44:12] - a: Yes.
-Paul[2018-01-30 10:38:48] - paul: you know better, because i'm unreasonable? or because i come prepared with a different viewpoint and a knowledge of the lesser known driving laws than the rest of you? ~a
[2018-01-30 10:36:42] - I know better than to argue with Adrian about bicycles, and I have work to do, so I'm going to bow this one out.
-Paul[2018-01-30 10:36:34] - aaron: regardless of whether he could reasonably see her or not, whether or not you think he is "morally" at fault, you can think of a few laws the truck driver broke right? as far as i'm aware, she didn't break any laws. maybe she was about to (i.e. if he had stopped and she had biked around him instead of backing up), but she didn't break any laws that i know of before she died. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:34:34] - aaron: i know it's usually true, but just because it's on a mudflap does not make it fact. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:34:13] - aaron: you assume that with his convex mirror he wouldn't be able to see her. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:33:01] - a: but, maybe all of that stuff is slightly wrong, or maybe there's a reasonable expectation for a truck to be aware of a cyclist who rides parallel to the right side of their cab for 30 seconds and then creeps up under their passenger mirror. maybe they actually have visibility there, and most truckers would have caught that, and this driver was negligent. i wouldn't rule it out. - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:31:58] - a: yeah, i guess you've changed my mind a little. i thought at first, "well anybody in the blind spot deserves to be hit," because you learn in driver's ed never drive in a truck's blind spot, always pass on the left, etc.... and you see these things on the backs of trucks and mudflaps, "hey if you pass me on this side, i can't see you," so i just assumed all that stuff was true - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:30:34] - aaron: "i can't place that judgment" you said "blameless" before. have you changed your mind? ~a
[2018-01-30 10:29:57] - i think urban planners should just avoid allowing 16 wheelers to drive adjacent to bike lanes -- either by relocating bike lanes or having special "truck lanes" or something like that, because again i just think it's expecting too much from both parties for either of them to avoid this accident - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:28:11] - a: i haven't driven a truck or used those mirrors so that behavior lies somewhere between the areas of "grossly negligent" and "completely unavoidable" and obviously you seem to think it's the former but i can't place that judgment. but likewise as was probably evident from the way i initially framed the accident, i think the cyclist could have taken steps to avoid the accident as well; but neither party was negligent imho - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:27:06] - i think you're right that yes, if the truck driver remembered "hey i passed a cyclist on the bridge 100 seconds ago and i don't think the cyclist turned at any of the previous intersections," they could have obeyed massachusetts law by skipping the right turn; and if the truck driver had seen the cyclist in the blind spot mirror he obviously shouldn't have made the turn - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:25:26] - a: how could the truck driver know that he's hit someone? to be clear also, i don't think the cyclist was at fault in this situation either. i think if i had to lay blame for the accident it has to do with A. allowing large trucks on city streets, and B. the positioning of the bike lane or similar things. i don't think two attentive humans in this situation can be reasonably expected to avoid an accident - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:24:44] - i understood what you meant. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:22:06] - a: i'm messing up pronouns a lot but hopefully you understood what i meant - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:20:59] - a: i believe you when you say, "the truck driver must have passed the cyclist" because the video says so. but my problem is a. it's not in the video, so we don't know the circumstances of how he passed her or what objects occluded his vision when he was passed and b. based on the timestamps given in the video, him being passed occurred up to 90 seconds before the accident - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:18:51] - aaron: "cyclist is still in his blind spot" the truck driver has the legal responsibility to check their blind spot, so stop repeating this. he did something illegal, followed it by doing something else illegal (not checking his blind spot), then did a third illegal thing (left the scene of a fatal accident). ~a
[2018-01-30 10:18:12] - paul: i don't think the truck driver even felt the cyclist. she was in his blind spot during the entire duration of the accident, and since the back part of of his truck ran over her it's likely he didn't even feel the smallest shake in the front part of the cab where he was riding - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:17:28] - aaron: "did the truck driver pass the bicyclist?" yes. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:17:17] - xpovos/aaron: he passed the bicyclist, and the right hooked: turned into her direction of travel. cutting her off. it's basically like turning right from the middle lane when someone is in the right lane (as far as the law is concerned. also from the perspective of a bicyclist, people turning right from the "middle" lane is grossly inappropriate). ~a
[2018-01-30 10:15:46] - a: did the truck driver pass the bicyclist? i see 0:47; truck is stopped at a red light. 1:04; truck is approaching the intersection, cyclist is behind him in his blind spot. 1:07; truck puts on his turn signal and starts to turn; cyclist is still in his blind spot. 1:24; cyclist is still behind him and truck hits her - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:15:35] - a: Did the truck driver know they drove over the cyclist? That seems to be important and not yet addressed. -Paul
[2018-01-30 10:15:23] - xpovos: it's the law in most states. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:14:58] - a: I tend to assume police police, yeah. I realize that's an assumption and not one always borne out in reality. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 10:13:57] - a: Was he even aware he'd struck something? You stop when you know you've hit something, sure, but the relative masses means that the collision could have occured without the truck driver even knowing. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 10:13:17] - xpovos: that's an interesting conclusion to jump to. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:12:58] - a: Is that Massachuttses law? -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 10:12:56] - xpovos: there is no evidence that the cyclist was distracted. but there is evidence that the truck driver killed her and kept driving. blameless, wtf. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:12:10] - aaron: I have to imagine if it were illegal in some way the police would have prosecuted that charge and then also sought vehicular manslaughter. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 10:11:59] - aaron: "no person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper". it's a law that a professional truck driver should know. how would you say blameless. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:11:30] - blameless? jesus. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:11:05] - aaron: Thank you. That's pretty awful. Is there any evidence that the cyclist was distracted? Obviously the rear tires are coming from behind her, but the truck is at her side and moving. A certain amount of road awareness is necessary here for her too, particularly since her life is at stake. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 10:10:56] - obviously this scenario isn't identical because there's a bike lane there. wait, did the truck break the law? was it an illegal right turn? - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:10:31] - aaron: i probably would word that differently. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:10:14] - honestly i feel bad for the cyclist but i also think the driver of the truck was blameless. as a motorist, i know if i see a truck put on its right turn signal and veer to the left side of its lane, i'd be insane to try to creep up along its passenger side door, because i'm obviously going to get hit and the truck can't see me - aaron
[2018-01-30 10:08:52] - xpovos: yeah, the video wasn't gruesome. you only see that someone was run over. and that the truck was breaking the law. and that the truck kept going after the collision. it is very slow though, i watched it in 2x until the ending. ~a
[2018-01-30 10:08:47] - xpovos: the truck correctly signaled and indicated it was making a wide right turn at a light, including veering towards the left side of its lane and using its turn signal. the cyclist rode into the truck's blind spot (to the right side of the passenger-side door) and stopped there. the truck's rear tires were dragged over the cyclist - aaron
[2018-01-30 09:45:32] - a: I choose not to watch the video, but I need more evidence to form a full conclusion. What are the circumstances that led to the accident? The still I can see the biker is entering the intersection and the truck that presumably hits her is circled, approaching from her rear. 1) Is that accurate. 2) What is the sequence of events for the collision? -- Xpovos
[2018-01-30 09:12:15] - i've come to the conclusion that new england cycling is dangerous. you kill someone, you drive away, it's all caught on video, and zero punishment. who the fuck would want to live up there? ~a
[2018-01-29 13:54:11] - Well, it happened. NFLX overtook AMZN as my biggest individual holding today. Netflix has been insane. Every time I sell some I end up regretting it pretty soon.
-Paul[2018-01-29 10:29:10] - Daniel: Well, I wasn't necessarily trying to defend any policy. This is a few steps away from my original point, that I'm beginning to think that Trump deserves some small percentage of credit (10%?) for the stock market performance during his first year. -Paul
[2018-01-29 10:22:21] - oh haha you made that "joke". ~a
[2018-01-29 10:22:04] - paul: non-zero = 2%?
~a[2018-01-29 10:19:05] - To be clear, I'm not trying to say all companies are going to do this, or even most. But if it's even just 2% like Adrian said... that's more than 0%, which is the number we would get without the tax cut, right? -Paul
[2018-01-29 10:18:31] - Paul: I would probably agree that its a non zero number. I'm not sure thats sufficient to defend it as a policy. I guess as a related but different question do you see the increasing wage gap as a problem or just inevitable given the modern global economy? -Daniel
[2018-01-29 10:16:27] - Daniel: Because they aren't making enough money. Now, they're making more money, and they can afford to retain some of those employees who keep leaving. -Paul
[2018-01-29 10:15:52] - Daniel: Sure, I get that most companies don't want to pay employees more than they have to, but consider that they also can't pay employees more if they don't have the money. It seems reasonable to me to think that there is a non-zero number of businesses out there who want/need to pay their employees more, but can't afford to. -Paul
[2018-01-29 10:14:00] - paul: "It just seems to me that it's reasonable to assume that a corporate tax cut (and companies bringing overseas cash back to the US) would improve the US economy and help raise wages more than if it didn't happen". no that's not a reasonable assumption. that's a form of trickle-down economics, and it's not safe to assume that will work as intended. ~a
[2018-01-29 10:13:03] - yes, there was a split. ~a
[2018-01-29 10:12:37] - I'm sure there are going to be some companies that do, like there are some companies who I think care more but even "more" in this context is a pretty low bar for me. I think in general most companies don't care a lot for any individual employee. -Daniel
[2018-01-29 10:11:18] - oh my bad. That was supposed to be @ Paul. -Daniel
[2018-01-29 10:11:02] - a: I'm not sure that I would assume that increased corporate revenue / money / profit would directly lead to increased wages. Companies don't want to pay people more than is required, not how much they could pay people, so increased funds on the companies part doesn't seem to change how much is required to pay someone. -Daniel
[2018-01-29 09:58:55] - a: http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/bitcoin-investment-trust-announced-a-91-for-1-stock-split-2018-1-1013040332 Jeebus. A 91-1 split and still you're competitive in the challenge... -Paul
[2018-01-29 09:58:17] - a: Did GBTC have a split or something? Your returns suddenly look less good in the spreadsheet.
-Paul[2018-01-29 09:49:07] - a: Yeah, it's always going to be imperfect trying to measure things like this. It just seems to me that it's reasonable to assume that a corporate tax cut (and companies bringing overseas cash back to the US) would improve the US economy and help raise wages more than if it didn't happen. -Paul
[2018-01-29 08:32:45] - paul: 2% got raises (reportedly) due to the new republican tax law. that actually seems pretty high. though i wonder how many of those raises people were going to get anyways (and vice versa: how many bonuses were because of the change in the law, were not reported as because of the change in the law). ~a
[2018-01-26 15:21:20] - curator links. ~a
[2018-01-26 15:12:01] - aaron: Curator sounds familiar to me. -Paul
[2018-01-26 14:51:11] - a: was it the "curator"? i think that was something. i used it for OO and, i think, operating systems - aaron
[2018-01-26 11:26:05] - a: Yeah, I did that after your post. I just assumed it was pulled automatically before. I'm lazy. -Paul
[2018-01-26 11:15:58] - paul: knowing what is manual and what is automatic isn't magic. you can click on the cells and see how they work. ~a
[2018-01-26 11:12:36] - aaron: i tried google and i tried archive.org. i think the biggest problem is i mostly didn't use that system. do you remember which classes used the system? 90% of my cs classes were old-school. send an email. ftp a file. or worse. submit a 1.44! ~a
[2018-01-26 11:06:53] - does anybody remember the name for virginia tech's auto-grading software for programming assignments? it had a little one-word name like... registrar, or adjudicator, or something like that. - aaron
[2018-01-26 11:04:51] - paul: yep. dividends are manual. i think i could probably make it automatic, but i haven't. ~a
[2018-01-26 10:56:39] - a: Okay, so the dividends column is manually kept up and should be added to only once the dividend gets paid? -Paul
[2018-01-26 10:49:15] - paul: i've been adding them sporadically. yes, please feel free to add some that i missed. it probably won't change the "winner" but i have noticed a percent change between with and without dividends sometimes. ~a
[2018-01-26 10:46:03] - a: I can't remember, are we adding dividends to our returns for the stock market challenge? If so, is it a problem that mine for 2018 aren't listed and I should add them? -Paul
[2018-01-25 13:20:50] - Geez, if Netflix keeps this up, it might overtake Amazon for my biggest single holding (outside of index funds). -Paul
[2018-01-25 12:51:42] - daniel/paul: fees are 1%/year. so cheaper than gbtc and hold-10, but that's not saying much. ~a
[2018-01-25 12:32:53] - Daniel: Yeah, definitely sounds like something that I wouldn't want to touch. I imagine the fees are probably pretty high for an ETF. -Paul
[2018-01-25 12:25:07] - Paul: I tried to read through the prospectus. It is a 3x index etf. It read like a lot of derivative / option stuff to try and achieve its goal per day. -Daniel
[2018-01-25 12:23:16] - a: Is UPRO one of those 3x index etfs? I don't know the technicalities of how they work either. Assumed it was options magic. -Paul
[2018-01-25 12:22:35] - https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/25/free-cryptocurrency-trading-app/ -Paul
[2018-01-25 11:38:15] - . . . maybe *as* the s&p500 goes down they are selling stock to rebalance? god that's hard to think about: i wasn't even sure if in a down market you'd have to buy or sell stock to rebalance. ~a
[2018-01-25 11:29:17] - yeah haha. that's definitely something i've never done. i did consider buying a few shares of upro at one point just for fun. i did never do it, though, and buying even one share today seems like a dumb idea. how does upro even work if the s&p500 goes down 33%? it becomes worthless? i guess they just liquidate the fund and collect the worthless shares? ~a
[2018-01-25 11:10:23] - a: Re: Your link. It started off on a bad foot when he started talking about margin, imho. -Paul
[2018-01-25 11:08:47] - a: You took my story, which I thought was inspirational, and turned it into a downer.
-Paul[2018-01-25 11:04:37] - yeah i guess "try" was my word. ok so i guess i took too many liberties. ~a
[2018-01-25 11:04:05] - Paul: To late! I already gave up being smart. Its all yur fult. -Daniel
[2018-01-25 11:01:16] - a: Haha, whoops. Didn't mean to tell people to stop trying to be smarter.
-Paul[2018-01-25 10:33:34] - paul: also, there are stories like this where people have snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory where i'm glad my decision making skills aren't this bad. trading and gambling are such close concepts. ~a
[2018-01-25 10:31:04] - haha, yeah that part was basically a quote. maybe you implied it or it was explicit about the holding, i don't remember. i read it a few months ago. anyways, i don't beat myself up about selling things, because in the end i feel like i've done pretty well in the markets (and in general). ~a
[2018-01-25 10:24:43] - a: Oh, well, the last part (not let failure stop you) was intended, I didn't really intend the first part. Was that implied? -Paul
[2018-01-25 10:22:34] - something something percent of the shots you don't take. ~a
[2018-01-25 10:21:08] - paul: yes the one you wrote. you were saying you should have held? god i guess i misread the post. i thought the point of your post was that i shouldn't try to be smarter or work harder (although that probably would help), but instead that i shouldn't let failure stop me
~a[2018-01-25 10:16:12] - a: What link? The one I posted... that I wrote? I'm confused. I was saying I should've held instead of sold. -Paul
[2018-01-25 10:11:32] - also while we're on the topic, i think bezos and musk are weirdos. i would totally retire in their position. what's more, it's weird they would work so hard for money that they can't possibly spend. ~a
[2018-01-25 10:07:46] - paul: i suppose. and i know you're joking. but, i still feel like you're missing the message of that link. the long-tailed distribution of returns is why it’s important to be bold.
~aprev <-> next