prev <-> next
[2018-02-15 11:41:35] - In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. law that required handguns to be locked or otherwise kept inoperative within the home, saying that this "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."[26] Apparently that avenue is out. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 11:40:27] - Paul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#Locks Generally thats the idea. So yeah you would need a key or something in order to make the gun usable. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 11:35:19] - Daniel: It sounds like Adam Lanza's mother took him shooting, for example... -Paul
[2018-02-15 11:34:22] - Daniel: Do trigger locks have keys or a combination or something to prevent their use? This is pure speculation, but in a household where the parents own guns, I would think they would also want their kids to be knowledgeable about guns and might even go out shooting with them, so I wonder how effective stuff like that would be. -Paul
[2018-02-15 11:25:45] - Daniel: Trying to craft legislation around guns and trying to solve gun violence by looking at mass shootings is like trying to solve transportation deaths by looking at airplane crashes. It's ignoring the vast majority of gun deaths and instead focusing on the "flashy" ones (for lack of a better term). -Paul
[2018-02-15 11:24:50] - Daniel: One thing I would add, though, is that mass shootings are a terrible way to look at gun violence (and during the aftermath of those is unfortunately basically the only time we talk about gun violence). -Paul
[2018-02-15 11:24:00] - Daniel: My position is a little more involved, but that's a pretty good summation. I've actually been working on an RD article that I hope articulately lays out most of my opinions. -Paul
[2018-02-15 10:49:51] - quote from same NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/us/school-shootings-sandy-hook-parkland.html -Daniel
[2018-02-15 10:49:19] - "Fourteen states and Washington, D.C., currently have laws that impose criminal liability on those who store guns at home and know “or reasonably should know†that those firearms are accessible to children." - I wonder how thats enforced or checked or if its just after the fact punishment. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 10:48:03] - Though honestly if you are to irresponsible to secure your guns when you have kids in your house there is probably literally nothing to be done about that. Weekly random inspection of gun owners homes to make sure guns are properly secured? But that would never fly... -Daniel
[2018-02-15 10:46:52] - Maybe a different form of gun control would be mandated gun safes or trigger locks or something? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 10:46:23] - From NYT article: Police reports often leave out the origin of guns used in school shootings, but researchers say that a significant portion of the guns used in such episodes come from the shooters’ homes. Many children have access to unlocked guns at home. Data from gun ownership surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 54 percent of gun owners with children under 18 living at home say they keep all of their guns locked away
[2018-02-15 10:03:39] - I think thats what I remember, thinking gun control won't stop them but then not really sure what if anything would stop them. Just want to make sure thats an accurate takeaway. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 10:03:12] - I know we've been around this several times before and don't think either side has made any significant progress on the other but just to make sure I remember correctly, is the Paul / Xpovos / Miguel position that you aren't sure how to stop things like mass shootings but don't think gun control is the answer? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 09:27:40] - we all gotta die somehow (per 10k population. now beating out death by motor vehicle) ~a
[2018-02-14 13:08:57] - a: Yeah I don't think its undermining my belief in passive investing but certainly more nuance and stuff going on there than I initially thought. -Daniel
[2018-02-14 13:07:32] - daniel: yeah but i think in the end it doesn't really matter. if the fee is low, and the companies are evenly represented (mostly by market cap), i think the rest will come out in the wash. ~a
[2018-02-14 13:03:29] - Really between this and our discussion last week or whatever my definition of "index fund" has become increasingly vague. -Daniel
[2018-02-14 13:02:39] - Interesting. I didn't know that either. -Daniel
[2018-02-14 13:02:28] - Reading further in the prospectus: The Total Stock Market Index Fund is subject to index sampling risk, which is the chance that the securities selected for the Fund, in the aggregate, will not provide investment performance matching that of the Fund’s target index. Index sampling risk for the Fund should be low. The remaining Funds use the replication method of indexing, meaning that each Fund generally holds the same stocks as its target.
[2018-02-14 12:58:58] - paul: yeah and they have "benchmarks" that they try to compare against. so, these quirks shouldn't effect the overall output too much. ~a
[2018-02-14 12:57:21] - a: Huh, interesting. So it's not directly correlated to market cap. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little. Even something as simple as passive index funds have their own quirks.
-Paul[2018-02-14 12:52:08] - paul: "key characteristics include industry weightings and market capitalization, as well as certain financial measures, such as price/earnings ratio and dividend yield" link. so, there you go. it's not just market cap, they take earnings and dividends into account. ~a
[2018-02-14 12:23:50] - a: Why is Microsoft such a larger holding than Amazon considering they have similar market caps? -Paul
[2018-02-14 12:22:24] - a: Yeah, I can't think of a good reason for not switching my VFIAX to VTSAX. Maybe this weekend I'll sit down and see if I can get it switched. -Paul
[2018-02-14 12:18:24] - paul: putting another plug in for vtsax: amzn is less than 2% of vtsax. ~a
[2018-02-14 11:41:08] - aaron: that works on me. ~a
[2018-02-14 11:19:34] - a: Well, if Amazon is only 2% of VFIAX, then I should be fine. No matter how I slice my estimations, I don't see how Amazon could be more than 5% of my retirement portfolio, and I would be comfortable with 5% all things considered. -Paul
[2018-02-14 11:05:51] - a: you are bag
- aaron[2018-02-14 11:04:32] - "others were, um, strange. i don’t know what they mean, but some of them might work on me"
~a[2018-02-14 11:00:32] - http://aiweirdness.com/post/170685749687/candy-heart-messages-written-by-a-neural-network candy heart messages written by a neural network - aaron
[2018-02-14 10:55:36] - paul: those are all valid concerns . . . ones that the rest of us don't have to worry as much about though!
. . . sorry, i don't know of any tools that will do this analysis for you. especially ones that will do it automatically. but that doesn't mean mint or whatever won't do these things for you. you could also get a few hours of time from a (fee-only) financial planner? ~a[2018-02-14 10:40:15] - a: Or the opposite, where I don't think I'm TOO invested in something like Amazon, but it turns out that it shows up in all my index funds AND is my biggest individual stock holding. -Paul
[2018-02-14 10:39:43] - a: Gotcha, and I understand it probably shouldn't be a big worry. I just hear stories about how sometimes "Developing Market" funds have a big weighting to Samsung because somehow South Korea is considered developing. I just worry that my biggest blind spot is thinking I have exposure to some areas, but not actually having exposure... -Paul
[2018-02-14 10:37:24] - paul: now i see what you mean by holdings though. yeah, that's some deep digging shit that i would probably do manually. i did an analysis of vgt for similar reasons (i was actually mad that amazon *wasn't* in vgt!) ~a
[2018-02-14 10:33:15] - paul: no, definitely not. but vfiax is broadly spread across 500 companies, so i don't consider that a worry. (also i looked it up to confirm, $200 of your 10k will be in amazon). ~a
[2018-02-14 10:27:04] - a: I mean if I put in VFIAX, will it know that out of my $10k, $1k is invested in Amazon? Thus maybe contributing to overweighting me in Amazon. -Paul
[2018-02-14 10:23:42] - paul: "look up the holdings for index funds" i don't know what this means. i can definitely put in "vtsax". there are some private 401k funds it doesn't have though for sure (your 401k may or may not have any of those). "getting constant infusions of fresh capital" yeah, i update that manually each quarter. a huge pain, and i may eventually change to a more automatic system, but there you go. ~a
[2018-02-14 10:09:36] - a: So can google look up the holdings for index funds? I suppose the only thing that would need some updating is my 401(k), which is getting constant infusions of fresh capital. -Paul
[2018-02-14 09:59:55] - paul: i have a column (manual) that says the %fee and the %domestic/international/bond. and whether it's roth, traditional, or taxable. then i can look at things as an aggregate between all of my accounts. that's how i know the domestic/international/bond is 60/30/10 split. it's how i know that my overall fee is ~.08%. also it's how i know my roth/traditional/taxable split is 15/25/60. ~a
[2018-02-14 09:54:31] - Paul: Yeah I think its DIY with google sheets or something like that or use a service like Personal Capital / Mint / etc where you have to give your passwords to them. -Daniel
[2018-02-14 09:47:46] - paul: i've done it all manually. i.e. google docs. which lets you do some fancy shit, Ã la the stock market challenge (i can say "units" and "ticker" and it'll tell me the total amount). ~a
[2018-02-14 07:35:57] - Maybe I should be looking at Mint again? -Paul
[2018-02-14 07:35:37] - Does anybody know of any good ways to basically link all my accounts to see that, gee, I'm actually way overexposed to Amazon due to it being my largest single individual holding and also being big in my index funds. Or maybe to see that I need more small cap exposure or whatever. -Paul
[2018-02-14 07:34:18] - I was glancing through some information on my portfolio on Merrill Lynch (interestingly, they think I have a smaller international exposure), when I realized it would be nice to be able to see info on ALL of my retirement funds in aggregate. I've got them essentially stashed in 4 different places right now. -Paul
[2018-02-13 14:13:48] - paul: yeah it's lame that they don't give a unit either. ~a
[2018-02-13 14:11:23] - a: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077MPLQVM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1 I don't know the unit either. Not sure anybody ever told me. These are the ones I bought, with the "size" being 1.00. When you look at non-prescription reading glasses at stores, they are measured with those numbers too. -Paul
[2018-02-13 14:11:01] - oh nm, you're farsighted. we're in different worlds. ~a
[2018-02-13 14:09:32] - paul: i'm not sure what +1.00 means. do you have a unit? diopter? if so, you're still doing ok
i'm not sure i've ever been >0 for diopter. ~a[2018-02-13 14:02:43] - a: The way I see it, the bond percentage is probably a little bit to help people not freak out during major corrections by softening losses. I like to think I have the stomach to tolerate those big swings and so will gladly trade the peace of mind for higher returns over 20 years. -Paul
[2018-02-13 14:01:31] - a: Yeah, those are mine. Eye doctor said I could probably use a tiny bit (+1.00) of help. -Paul
[2018-02-13 13:55:02] - oh wow i didn't see the other message. those are yours? nice. welcome to the family. ~a
[2018-02-13 13:54:34] - paul: who's glasses are you wearing on facebook? ~a
[2018-02-13 13:49:31] - a: Yeah if you are retiring early (or planning to try) then yeah the bond %'s are probably going to be different. -Daniel
[2018-02-13 13:46:57] - daniel: look at my last message. vanguard 2030 = 30%, vanguard 2040 = 15%. (. . . like, i don't have kids) ~a
[2018-02-13 13:45:18] - a: Which vanguard fund has 30% bonds? Their 2045 fund only has 10% -Daniel
[2018-02-13 13:36:35] - paul: "Need to keep that pedal on the metal for as long as possible" yeah, i don't necessarily disagree. it's probably the place where i differ from vanguard the most. i sit somewhere between you (0%) and vangard (30%). ~a
[2018-02-13 13:28:39] - a: Yeah, I guess that's another reason why I consider myself an aggressive investor. I see no use for bonds at this point in my life in my retirement portfolio. I don't plan on even considering bonds until my 40s (which is closer than it sounds, now that I say that). Need to keep that pedal on the metal for as long as possible. -Paul
[2018-02-13 13:24:16] - paul: haha, no. sorry, i didn't include bitcoin in these numbers. (i'm hoping to very slowly make my bitcoin holdings smaller). for comparison vanguard 2030 is 30% bonds. vanguard 2040 is 15% bonds. ~a
[2018-02-13 13:05:37] - a: Bonds!? Bonds = Bitcoin?
-Paul[2018-02-13 12:45:47] - i'm at ~60% domestic, ~30% international, ~10% bonds. ~a
[2018-02-13 12:34:03] - I'd have to check but I think I'm in the 25-30% range. -Daniel
[2018-02-13 12:27:06] - Daniel: Not sure I have any of those, but I would estimate around 20% of my individual stocks portfolio is a legit international company, so maybe I'm closer to 35%-40% international. -Paul
[2018-02-13 12:15:05] - Paul: Yeah I would count any non US company as international. Though I guess it would start to be somewhat tricky for like a US company that just moves its HQ to Ireland or whatever. Like its still basically a US company but maybe on paper counts as international? -Daniel
[2018-02-13 12:06:32] - Daniel: It's a little weird, because I was scared off by some higher fees for the international funds in my 401(k), so that part is all domestic stuff, which is starting to unbalance things. -Paul
[2018-02-13 12:05:43] - Daniel: Well, 2/3rds of my Vanguard funds are in international or emerging market funds. But relative to my entire retirement portfolio.... I guess it's closer to 1/3rd? Do you count stuff like Canadian (Shopify) or Israeli (Mazor) companies as international? -Paul
[2018-02-13 11:50:20] - Paul: I didn't realize there were extra requirements on the S&P500 either. I thought it was just 500 biggest by market weight. Interesting. I do agree that one shouldn't be only in that. -Daniel
[2018-02-13 11:49:41] - Paul: How high is your international? I don't think I've ever seen a solid consensus on how much to have. I've read stuff from like 15% to 35%. -Daniel
[2018-02-13 11:39:50] - a: I wonder about maybe swapping my S&P 500 index fund for a total market fund but also keeping the small cap fund. I really like taking an aggressive approach (I know my international exposure is higher than recommended too) since I feel like I still have 20 years of growth ahead of me. -Paul
[2018-02-13 11:35:50] - "i wonder if small caps get rotated out once they get too big" i'm sure they do. which is why you should have mid-cap and large-cap exposure too
~a[2018-02-13 11:33:22] - % higher fees. I wonder if small caps get rotated out once they get too big. That would be a shame and cap the upside, I would think. -Paul
[2018-02-13 11:32:51] - a: Although, honestly, it looks like VSMAX has been killing it despite the 50
[2018-02-13 11:25:21] - a: Twitter might've been winning yesterday too.
Yeah, the more I read up on stuff, the less I like the S&P500 index fund because I want some exposure to those small and midcap companies. Right now I have VFIAX and VSMAX, but I guess I should look into VTSAX instead? -Paul[2018-02-13 11:08:23] - paul: i do like your overall point though. ignoring twtr, it's yet another reason i don't like vfiax and opt for vtsax instead. my reason before you mentioned the weird s&p500 rules: vtsax is awesome because it also has midcap and smallcap. ~a
[2018-02-13 11:04:00] - "spanking the pants off" hah. those are fighting words! (you cherry-picked one date where that was the case. most of the challenge twtr was in the red!) ~a
[2018-02-13 11:00:22] - But I wanted to mention Twitter first, since it is spanking the pants off of everybody in the 2018 stock market challenge. -Paul
[2018-02-13 10:58:56] - Or even Tesla, which at some points has been the largest auto maker by market cap. -Paul
[2018-02-13 10:56:48] - Which means that a lot of tech companies, like Twitter, aren't included in the S&P500 even if they might be one of the 500 largest. -Paul
[2018-02-13 10:56:17] - I never really thought about it, but I was listening to a podcast today which pointed out that the S&P500 isn't the 500 largest public companies in the US, it's 500 OF THE largest. Why? Because there are rules that the companies need to meet to be included, such as being GAAP profitable in the most recent quarter. -Paul
[2018-02-12 19:36:50] - a: It's politics, it doesn't have to make sense. I probably absorbed the phrase, and similar ones, by osmosis from my childhood. And the phrase probably originates back further. Rousseau probably started it. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-12 16:35:54] - . . . on the other hand, the literal "soak the rich tax" was proposed by a democratic congress. and signed into law by a democrat. ~a
[2018-02-12 16:32:16] - "I'm simply using the terminology" ah, my bad. i had never seen that used. i wonder, though, if that "terminology" wasn't picked to invoke a bias. ~a
[2018-02-12 16:17:01] - a: True, it will be a gradual process, but that won't necessarily make it easier to deal with. Also, as to the "soak-the-rich," I don't see that as such, I'm simply using the terminology. I'm amazed, just like you, the tax has existed in that state for so long. There are valid reasosn for it, but they're weak compared to the money available. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-12 15:31:59] - "When Social Security goes negative, our debt interest rate is going to spike" i don't think it happens all at once. any time that line is going downwards (like now), the debt interest rate will be rising. ~a
[2018-02-12 15:30:13] - xpovos: "largest purchasers of government debt" yeah, i'm not a fan of that at all. "so they buy treasuries": yeah that makes like no sense to me whatsoever. treasuries in general though, i guess i don't understand them either. ~a
[2018-02-12 15:29:04] - xpovos: soak-the-rich? i'm a little surprised that we have gone this long with a regressive tax. ~a
[2018-02-12 15:20:37] - One of the interesting knock-on effects that isn't widely discussed is how Social Security is one of the largest purchasers of government debt. We all know that the trust fund (lock box) is there to pay out future retirees, but in the meantime they want that money to gain interest, so they buy treasuries. Safe, reliable income. When Social Security goes negative, our debt interest rate is going to spike. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-12 15:18:11] - a: Right, I didn't look up the specifics, and it does change. Even if it changes with inflation, though, that's CPI inflation, which is probably insufficient. So that cap is almost certainly going to be removed. It's a very simple soak-the-rich tax increase. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-12 15:03:22] - xpovos: the 110k figure changes every year (it might follow inflation, i'm not sure). 110k is from 2012. we're up to 128k now. link ~a
[2018-02-12 14:59:39] - The only real tax increase for SS that is plausible is the uncapping of income. Currently it's something like $110K, anything above that doesn't get taxed for Social Security. It will in the future, probably within the next ten years. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-12 14:58:36] - a: I agree with Paul's assessment, but at some point even the borrowing has to stop (our interest payments are already getting to be substantial). Believe it or not, this is one where I think decreases in benefits are the more likely (ore more sizeable) result. They'll increase the retirement age, means-test and possibly even implement a lifetime cap. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-12 14:57:13] - paul: if you don't have any w2 income, i don't think you need to pay into it. i've often wondered what shenanigans you could get into (legally) avoiding w2 income. ~a
[2018-02-12 14:57:04] - paul: yeah, i considered pointing that out as well. technically social security could just go negative. oh, fun. ~a
[2018-02-12 14:47:25] - a: As for #2, I actually think more than either of those (since those are politically hard and at least partially a responsible thing to do), we're more likely to see just more borrowing and getting into debt. -Paul
[2018-02-12 14:46:03] - a: Bonus! It's a ponzi scheme that we're all required by law to pay in to.
-Paul[2018-02-12 14:45:44] - a: I wouldn't necessarily say super dishonest to #1, but yes, that's part of why some people describe SS as a ponzi scheme. Because as it is currently constructed, we pretty much know for sure that the "returns" that are being promised aren't possible. -Paul
[2018-02-12 14:35:01] - 2. seeing as they likely won't let this run out. do you think we'll see: A. a decrease in benefits? or B. an increase in taxes? (if both, which do you think will make up the majority) ~a
[2018-02-12 14:34:52] - 1. isn't it super-dishonest that the social security administration sends out these damn statements every year saying i'm going to get like $1000s per month, when out of the other side of their mouths they send out these statements saying that it is all lies unless changes are made? ~a
[2018-02-12 14:34:50] - found this graph on the social security website (page 2). to simplify slightly: 0% = $0. so, unless some change is made, social security runs out in 10 or 20 years? i have two questions for you guys. ~a
[2018-02-10 15:10:21] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/09/on-this-dating-app-every-one-is-a-hater--and-it-brings-people-together.html I found the "what does your state hate map really interesting. -Paul
[2018-02-08 15:56:20] - Bonus, my created alias still exists too. So not only do I have my PID @vt.edu account, but my personalized one too. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-08 14:43:48] - daniel: I always thought my keeping my vt account was kind of a loophole, as I ended up having a job in the VT cslab for a few months after graduating (so I would technically still have a need for it). But I guess at the end of the day they just didn't really keep tabs on it. I know some people who got cut off. - mig
[2018-02-08 14:39:44] - jesus do they still use that slogan? - mig
[2018-02-08 14:39:25] - xpovos: they reset mine to hokiesinventthefuture. - mig
[2018-02-08 13:58:29] - Daniel: I kind of expected that, but it kept working and I kept using it. And here I am, what, 15 years later? Still good. I had to use a temporary password during the process. "i love virginia tech". Yeah, prety much. Good school, good times. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-08 13:49:17] - I'm surprised you guys still have access to your vt accounts. My college turned ours off after we graduated. I think I had access maybe through July of year I graduated. Then cutoff! -Daniel
[2018-02-08 13:38:08] - fucking finally. ~a
[2018-02-08 12:14:31] - I had to call the tech support line and get new protocols up and running, but I'm still authorized, which is awesome. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-08 12:01:20] - I still use my vt account essentially as a holder for various things that require me to provide an email and I don't want to use my main one. Essentially you are going to need to call the campus help line to have them manually reset your password and they'll set you up with the 2 factor authentication (basically a blizz authenticator type app). - mig
[2018-02-08 11:59:31] - xpovos: they recently changed vt accounts to use 2 factor authentication. - mig
[2018-02-08 11:53:24] - craig still uses his (as of mid-2017). ~a
[2018-02-08 11:49:50] - Xpovos: I haven't used it in... probably over a decade, so I don't think I can help. Sorry. -Paul
[2018-02-08 11:32:37] - Does anyone here still use/access their @vt.edu email accounts? I've been using it for certain things but only in secondary fashion. So I haven't actually logged into it for ages. It seems I might need to now, but it's not letting me, probably because the account is so old and out of date with current protocols. Or alternatively I'm not eligible for it anymore or something. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-08 11:12:31] - paul: that's fair. wake me up in 2027 when we've beaten him 8 years out of 10
~a[2018-02-08 11:03:19] - a: As for who is winning, isn't the more important thing that we're both crushing Daniel, just like last contest?
-Paul[2018-02-08 10:59:09] - a: From what I've seen so far with Merril Lynch, though, it seems like a bit of a cleaner and more useful interface than Scottrade. Don't know how it compares to TD Ameritrade, though. -Paul
[2018-02-08 10:58:38] - a: Not technically yet. I finally got my stuff transferred over like a week ago (took a bit longer than I expected for some reason) and haven't made a trade yet. I was told I should have some free ones for transferring over, but I don't see evidence of that yet so I emailed my guy and am waiting to hear back. -Paul
[2018-02-08 10:41:29] - paul: have you been using boa for stock trading? since scottrade is shutting down, i have to decide whether i want to transfer my account to boa (or robinhood) or whether i want to learn the new amtd system. ~a
[2018-02-08 10:40:56] - i still do, yes. ~a
[2018-02-08 10:33:27] - a: " i'm not sure which is weirder, goog or twtr. no fb, paul? ~a" Still think twitter is a weird pick? (no comment on Google). -Paul
[2018-02-08 10:31:55] - a: Haha, twitter baby! Although you're back on top right now it looks like. -Paul
[2018-02-08 09:46:42] - girl scout sells cookies outside pot dispensary: 117 boxes in 2 hours. ha. ~a
[2018-02-08 09:35:52] - i was beating you by 5%. wtf is this shit?
~a[2018-02-08 09:34:43] - paul: 28% wtf? ~a
[2018-02-07 13:16:22] - paul: yeah, i was thinking that too. it was probably a hotly debated decision. ~a
[2018-02-07 12:59:08] - a: I'm a little surprised they didn't rebrand as well, but I guess it also took them awhile to become the goto site for cheaters, so I guess they didn't want to try to rebuild that. -Paul
[2018-02-07 11:20:43] - a: Uh.. I didn't do it. I'm guessing bluehost updated something. I have no idea if Ashley Madison ads showing up now is a reflection of https or your browsing habits.
-Paul[2018-02-07 11:18:38] - i'm actually surprised ashley madison didn't re-brand their name. aren't they forever going to be known as the website that ruined like thousands of lives? ~a
[2018-02-07 11:15:47] - ok now i see ashley madison ads on rd . . . hmmm. ~a
[2018-02-07 11:13:47] - RD went to https? when did that happen? welcome to a more secure internet, paul. ~a
[2018-02-07 10:59:32] - a: Just remember that if/when the SEC asks to interview you about me.
-Paul[2018-02-07 10:47:42] - discouraging the etf. haha. discouraging the use of the etf? ~a
[2018-02-07 10:47:10] - paul: "promote the ETF". you've spent time on this board telling us how actively managed funds are bad because of like 3 reasons, or something (i can't find that conversation. was it on RD? i don't see it there either). so i see, if anything, you've been discouraging the etf. ~a
[2018-02-07 10:39:49] - a: Something about regulations and not being seen as trying to promote the ETF. -Paul
[2018-02-07 10:39:24] - a: "when we talked about your new index the other day with daniel, we didn't discuss tmf etf" There's actually a good (and really odd, IMHO) reason for that. I don't think I was allowed to mention the ETF, but am allowed to mention the index and can discuss the ETF if somebody else brings it up. -Paul
[2018-02-07 10:26:50] - daniel: agreed. but when we were discussing good vs bad "index fund", it would have been interesting to know the 0.5% figure (if everybody ends up using the 0.5% etf, the index is only really just a benchmark). ~a
[2018-02-07 10:24:36] - a: For a passive investment .5% is really high. For actively managed investment .5% isn't actually that bad. -Daniel
[2018-02-07 10:08:30] - paul: huh when we talked about your new index the other day with daniel, we didn't discuss tmf etf. apparently the expense ratio is .5%. which is actually super high. ~a
[2018-02-07 10:06:40] - a: It's okay, I might just save it for later. Was curious how it would stack up with Daniel's portfolio. -Paul
[2018-02-07 10:06:19] - a: Yeah, I went to google finance and saw it only went back like a week and immediately realized that made sense.
-Paul[2018-02-07 10:04:50] - ~a
[2018-02-07 10:04:47] - i guess it makes sense that google finance wouldn't have fake historical data for tmfc. i'll let you add the historical data.
[2018-02-07 10:03:05] - nm. fuck it, we'll add it to both. it's not like fool100 could beat gbtc in 2017 anyways
~a[2018-02-07 10:02:25] - paul: you can. i'd use it in 2018 instead, though, because back-dating to january isn't as much of a stretch. ~a
[2018-02-07 09:58:34] - a: Hey, so if I wanted to include the Fool100 index in our stock market challenge sheet, but the index didn't exist until a week or so ago, I guess I can't really backdate it to May 2017, huh? -Paul
[2018-02-06 15:27:22] - ok, cool. ~a
[2018-02-06 15:26:51] - a: yeah, figuring out the single quotes was the key - aaron
[2018-02-06 15:26:51] - though i thought git for windows (maybe?) came with a unix shell of its own. ~a
[2018-02-06 15:26:33] - a: i think i got it, it's git config --global alias.fpush '!git push -f origin "$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"'... but yeah it looks like it works great! thanks - aaron
[2018-02-06 15:26:28] - if that doesn't work for you, it's possible that it requires a unix shell (macosx, linux, or cygwin)? ~a
[2018-02-06 15:25:11] - aaron: the reason jlleblanc decided to use "!" was because he also wanted to use $(), which normal git aliases do not allow. ~a
[2018-02-06 15:23:24] - oh also remove the sudo
. i accidentally added that, my bad. ~a[2018-02-06 15:22:28] - aaron: well, git aliases and unix aliases are very similar. the "!" at the beginning even specifically says to pass it as a command to your shell, so those aliases even more so. ~a
[2018-02-06 15:21:10] - aaron: well, so, a few changes. 1. you need to use --global (with two dashes). 2. you need to make sure to surround in single quotes (''), because "!" and "$" have special meaning to bash. sudo git config --global alias.fpush '!echo git push -f origin \"$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)\"' seemed to work for me (notice i added "echo" for debugging of the usage). when i said "git fpush" it printed out the line only. ~a
[2018-02-06 15:18:35] - it really just looks like a traditional "unix alias", like how someone might write something like alias fp="!git push -f origin..." but that's not a git alias. it's someone writing a unix alias to run a git command - aaron
[2018-02-06 15:16:29] - a: so the syntax is pretty alien to me. is it really a git alias? instead of something like git config -global alias.fpush "push --force origin", would the command be something like... git config -global alias.fpush "!git push -f origin \"$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)\"? it's kind of weird because i thought git aliases didn't usually start with "git" - aaron
[2018-02-06 11:12:46] - haha, i haven't solved 84 though that makes sense. monopoly is similar to chutes and ladders in a lot of ways. ~a
[2018-02-06 11:03:45] - a: https://projecteuler.net/thread=84 a few people used a markov chain for this problem for example. ...i didn't even realize it was feasible to compute those probabilities exactly, i thought it would require a monte-carlo solution - aaron
[2018-02-06 10:56:37] - a: yeah there's one specific problem where, after solving it, i combed through the solutions to see if anybody solved it with something like that instead of using a monte-carlo approach. and i found one or two people, and it was really interesting reading their solutions - aaron
[2018-02-06 10:24:50] - aaron: analysis of chutes and ladders. the section that interested me was the "markov chains" part. it looks like you can use (a different kind of) markov chains to determine the *exact* probability of some event occurring (works if state is simple, he discusses how this won't work for, say blackjack). i feel like this could have been useful in some project-euler problems. ~a
[2018-02-06 10:05:05] - it's in the link i posted. ~a
[2018-02-06 10:04:43] - oh it's definitely a git alias. did it not work? ~a
[2018-02-06 10:03:10] - a: is that a git alias or something you'd put in your .bashrc or something? - aaron
[2018-02-06 09:02:03] - fp = "!git push -f origin \"$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)\"" ~a
[2018-02-06 09:01:06] - aaron: yeah, i don't git push force very often. it's not something that comes up in my work-flow except maybe once or twice per year. usually if i'm reorganizing commits it's before i've ever pushed. however, it looks like the *second* answer here will work (we're assuming you have the same remote branch name as local branch name). ~a
[2018-02-05 18:29:25] - a: can you think of a simpler way to just push the current branch? google turns up some people doing stuff like git config --global alias.fpush "push --force origin" but a push --force is riskier than just forcing the current branch, so it would be nice to just push the current branch - aaron
[2018-02-05 18:28:27] - a: run a git branch command, grep for the asterisk which indicates the current branch, cut that one line so it just has the branch name, then store that as a local variable and do a git push origin ${someVariable}. ...i think this exact scenario is what git aliases were meant for, e.g. git config --global alias.fpush "push origin +branchname" but i don't know how to get the current branchname in there - aaron
[2018-02-05 18:26:38] - a: git question. my coworkers and i work on feature branches and frequently want to do crazy things like rebase all of our commits and redo them and push up the result. git allows you to push this sort of craziness with git push origin +my_branch but a lot of my coworkers don't like having to type their branch name; so they wrote a crazy series of scripts to do something like... - aaron
[2018-02-05 17:12:36] - paul: yeah, that's interesting. i don't think i ever thought it was in poor taste. i only thought that it seemed counter to king's beliefs. ~a
[2018-02-05 17:02:12] - Also, it sounds like we get to see how our hand-picked portfolios stack up against index funds during a pullback.
-Paul[2018-02-05 17:01:34] - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-dodge-ram-embodies-mlks-legacy-says-mlks-estate.html Not sure if it was mentioned here, but apparently Dodge made sure to get approval from MLK Jr's estate for the commercial. Doesn't mean it isn't in poor taste, but they tried to do it the right way. -Paul
[2018-02-05 14:01:48] - i'm not going to say "oh gee I want this or I want that". i will be signing it. ~a
[2018-02-05 13:59:29] - again?! i thought this was the same story one month ago ago. 45 said he'd sign whatever: so, a bipartisan plan brokered by both sides was made. 45 changes his mind. one month later, same exact story. ~a
[2018-02-05 13:35:32] - aaron: gotcha. thanks. yeah that sucks, sorry. ~a
[2018-02-05 13:32:43] - a: yeah i watched the original commercial; it uses the two paragraphs in MLK's drum major instinct speech starting with "if you want to be important..." down to "...a soul generated by love" in their entirety. they shortened a few sentences but nothing which changes the meaning - aaron
[2018-02-05 12:43:49] - aaron: "like the original commercial grabbed a contiguous part of that speech" are you sure? you asked me if that was true and i said i didn't know. ~a
[2018-02-05 12:15:50] - a: Hah! I was wondering what set it off. Thought maybe it was the commie word, but didn't realize it had a drug in it. -Paul
[2018-02-05 12:02:36] - a: like the original commercial grabbed a contiguous part of that speech and applied it to their cars which is yeah, a little scummy, but then why would you edit two things MLK said together to make up a lie for your counterpoint? ...MLK already said this stuff about advertisers appealing to the human psyche, just use that... it's a stronger statement without being misleading - aaron
[2018-02-05 12:01:34] - a: so what i mean is, the edited commercial is two unrelated exerpts, "advertisers try to tap into this part of the human psyche that makes you want the best stuff"... dot dot dot, "people have this viewpoint where their country has to be #1, and america's the worst about that stuff", and it's misleadingly connecting those dots which are much more loosely connected in the source speech - aaron
[2018-02-05 11:42:17] - paul: no, i'm not surprised that mlk wasn't a fan of marketing. ~a
[2018-02-05 11:41:38] - paul: it might be fixed. you had said "a: Wasn't MLK a socialist, too? So not surprising he wouldn't be a fan of marketing." ~a
[2018-02-05 11:40:40] - paul: it was the socia|ist word. because it has a drug (cia|is) as a subset. i'll fix it. ~a
[2018-02-05 11:38:12] - paul: yeah sorry. the spammers have gotten really bad recently. ~a
[2018-02-05 11:21:47] - Sad, the message board thinks I am a spammer. -Paul
[2018-02-05 11:21:19] - aaron: how was it misleading? "was the original dodge commercial spliced too?" no idea. maybe? ~a
[2018-02-05 11:08:48] - ...i recognized parts of the speech from a very loud hardcore song, i'd never actually heard the speech before except for that one clip about nuclear bombs and misguided patriotism - aaron
[2018-02-05 11:01:30] - a: huh, that advertisement was spliced between a few different parts of that speech in a misleading way. was the original dodge commercial spliced too? - aaron
[2018-02-05 09:14:32] - What Martin Luther King Actually Thought About Car Commercials (same speech, different part) ~a
[2018-02-02 16:55:17] - a: I don't think Prag had it, I'm not sure about AFS. I don't think its mandatory either but I'm not a professional in the field so maybe? -Daniel
[2018-02-02 16:10:55] - for true-up to effect you, you need to hit the limit. ~a
[2018-02-02 16:09:43] - paul: seeing as you're a fucking financial company though, you probably know people you could ask and it wouldn't seem weird, right? ~a
[2018-02-02 16:09:06] - paul: if you check your last pay-stub of the year, you would have contributions of $0 (and matching of $0). "less than (or equal to) the maximum I can contribute in a year" yeah if that's actually true then "true-up" would not affect you also you probably wouldn't be able to confirm if you even have true-up or not. ~a
[2018-02-02 15:58:17] - a: Is there an easy way to find out without pestering my plan administrator?
-Paul[2018-02-02 15:58:02] - a: I have no idea. For as long as I can remember, I've always done a consistent percentage which has been equal to (or over) the match but less than (or equal to) the maximum I can contribute in a year. -Paul
[2018-02-02 15:38:46] - daniel/paul: do your companies have a true up? we haven't done it in the past, but my new provider seems to think it's mandatory (which is wrong?). tl/dr: if you hit the ~18k max for the year, and you are contributing 0% in (say) december, the company isn't matching your funds. with true-up, they would catch up for the months you contributed *over* the match. ~a
[2018-02-02 15:22:12] - Brutal day for the market. Is this bull market finally coming to an end? Does Trump get 10% of the credit for the crash?
-Paul[2018-02-02 11:23:52] - *haha* that video is hilarious. i got zero of them. it's fun they all saved that category for last. it was also surprising to see trebek totally ignore who's turn it was to pick a question and picked one himself? then completely skipped the rest of the board! wow. ~a
[2018-02-02 11:19:04] - https://www.theringer.com/tv/2018/2/2/16964286/jeopardy-football-no-answers The first video in the article is pretty good. I got them all right! Maybe the first time I've ever gotten an entire Jeopardy category right and none of the contestants did. -Paul
[2018-02-02 10:16:58] - paul: yeah 2018. acbff has been very volatile. i'm still up ~300% from my buy-in in 2017, but the last few weeks have been brutal. ~a
[2018-02-02 10:14:07] - paul: the opposite can be a character flaw too: acting without fulling considering the outcome of my action. ~a
[2018-02-02 10:13:22] - a: Wow, what happened to acbff? For a second, I thought you meant for 2017. I knew bitcoin had dropped some but I hadn't thought that much! -Paul
[2018-02-02 10:12:33] - a: I honestly consider it to be a bit of a character flaw of myself how opposed I am to action sometimes. Basically, if I have any doubt at all that I should act, I often don't. Sometimes I think that's the wrong thing. -Paul
[2018-02-02 10:11:23] - paul: you're winning! woo. ~a
[2018-02-01 16:58:56] - "In other words, I don't want to become a murderer and end up not saving anybody somehow" yeah, agreed. i think we (mostly) all agree in reality we would not touch the controls even though it's *technically* the right thing to do. ~a
[2018-02-01 16:47:10] - re - Trump. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care, especially when it comes to tooting his own horn. And honestly, I think at least when it comes to this stuff, I'm not sure it really matters all that much (which i'm guessing is why he doesn't care). I'm much more concerned about him using dumb lies to advance his policy points (i.e. 3 million illegals gave Clinton the popular vote!) than the self congratulation garbage. - mig
[2018-02-01 16:10:16] - In other words, I don't want to become a murderer and end up not saving anybody somehow.
-Paul[2018-02-01 16:10:02] - Re: The Trolley Problem, if I was to be honest with myself, I would almost certain choose inaction in most of those situations. First, it's hard to comprehend a scenario where, in the split second required to make the decision, you can figure out things like doing A will definitely prevent B. -Paul
[2018-02-01 16:09:00] - a: Re: Trump. I stopped wondering about that over a year ago when it was clear that the truth doesn't seem to matter at ALL to him. This isn't even remotely the first time he's done something this bad. I just can't tell if he doesn't care or actually believes it. -Paul
[2018-02-01 15:48:23] - "Or you become a murderer" that's why i probably wouldn't consider touching the track controls. that goes along with the "do no harm" mentality especially when time is a factor. ~a
[2018-02-01 15:42:08] - "I'm not sure I could do it" yeah, in real life i definitely wouldn't do either action. in real life i'd probably sprint down the tracks while yelling, or maybe also try (and fail) to jump onto the train, or something else equally ridiculous and futile. ~a
[2018-02-01 15:25:50] - a: Its hard to say 100% about any of this hypothetical stuff but I think in the classic trolley problem I would off the one and feel bad but would be able to rationalize it to myself. If it was Alex/Nathan on the track though I think part of me would know the utilitarian answer would be to have the train hit them but I'm not sure I could do it. -Daniel
[2018-02-01 15:24:10] - Another way of asking the question is, which would you rather? There be a terrible trajedy that you had nothing to do with where many people die. Or you become a murder. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 15:22:55] - a: That's typically the "correct" moral action. It's is rare that refusing to take action is morally inferior to taking an action, even if the action is a good action. in each of these thought experiments, the action is usually a bad action chosen to avoid a worse outcome through inaction, or some varient. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 15:16:59] - paul: i read about the trolley problem recently. it sounds interesting. i'm not sure how i would act in almost any of these versions. the "switchman's child" version. jesus, that's even worse. they almost all seem like a false-choice situation: in real life i will always refuse to pick one of those two choices. ~a
[2018-02-01 14:53:40] - i know this seems like a petty thing to even bring up, but why does he keep saying patently false things over and over and over and over? he knows we're going to go look it up. right? or does he think we won't look it up? i don't get it. he's not even close. it's not even like a grey area. ~a
[2018-02-01 14:53:22] - a: Yup, morality gets really interesting when it comes to triage and the trolley problem and the aforementioned embryos vs babies (or even the down syndrome law). -Paul
[2018-02-01 14:22:41] - do no harm kinda goes out the window when people are clearly going to die regardless of your decisions. ~a
[2018-02-01 14:21:33] - xpovos/paul: yeah triage is messy, and i agree it's a hard decision. but when it came to actually euthanizing people and being surrounded by tons of people during their painful and messy deaths, it sounded the worst. ~a
[2018-02-01 14:20:14] - daniel: yeah, agreed, it didn't seem linear. i think the middle group actually went first. ~a
[2018-02-01 14:18:02] - Paul: I guess I would have some cutoff point where the sickest that I thought would survive go first but if you were more sick than that. Yeah you are probably going last. -Daniel
[2018-02-01 14:08:51] - a: "their decision on *how* to categorize people seemed so completely backwards. the sickest people were saved *last* because they had a smaller chance to live anyway" Interesting, I can see how that could seem backwards, but it seems like how it should work to me. -Paul
[2018-02-01 14:00:17] - a: Triage is messy business. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 13:40:45] - it got even crazier when they just started euthanizing many of the patients that were in the last group. sounded like hell. no electricity. people dying everywhere. no thank you. ~a
[2018-02-01 13:40:00] - paul/xpovos: i predicted he'd pick the babies. this seems very much like a story i heard on npr about Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. basically there were a number of people to be saved. so they had to categorize people with a number (1, 2, or 3). their decision on *how* to categorize people seemed so completely backwards. the sickest people were saved *last* because they had a smaller chance to live anyway. ~a
[2018-02-01 13:34:07] - Paul: To actually take a stab at answering the question, I'd likely grab the babies for the simple reason that the babies would probably be screaming. Grabbing the embryos might save more lives, which may be a greater good, but saving any life is a good thing so neither option is really "wrong." -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 13:32:31] - a: Sorry, obviously, that was to Paul. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 13:32:14] - a: Yeah, that's a tough one, those are often used in moral philosophy clases, so I've experienced a fair number. I was actually talking about a different type just the other night, but that one's focus was oddly on racism and pre/post action moralizing. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 12:55:56] - Xpovos: You can only save one of those groups. There are many times more embryos than babies, but the babies are, well, babies and not embryos. Which do you save and why? -Paul
[2018-02-01 12:54:54] - Xpovos: I have, what is probably a completely unfair question (so feel free to refuse to answer), but I'm curious your take on it. Hypothetical scenario: You're in a lab which is burning down. On the left is a baby (or two or three, however many you think you could carry at once). On the right is a tray of dozens of fertilized embryos... -Paul
[2018-02-01 12:52:48] - Xpovos: Issues like those really hit a lot of tough questions about what it means to be human in terms of when does human life begin and is all human life equal. -Paul
[2018-02-01 12:51:43] - Xpovos: I find stuff like Down's Syndrome to be an interesting slippery slope (and I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative with that). I can see very logical, reasonable and humane arguments for both a law requiring Down syndrome fetuses to be aborted and also for being completely outraged over such a law existing. -Paul
[2018-02-01 12:29:08] - ... and a host of situations that are problematic because they share the same fundamental failure to recognize intrinsic value in human life--it all stems from a basic acceptance of murder, in certain circumstances. If we are going to have murder be against the law (we need it to be), it needs to be uniformly enforced. Even when that's not necessarily practical, or perhaps even humane. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 12:27:31] - a: Do I think laws that criminalize abortion are necessary, yes. Do I think they are helpful, often no. But they still need to be laws because the issue is societal acceptance of murder, which is harmful in not just the specific instance, but also for a wider range of things. A tolerance of abortion can, and I say will, lead to a tolerance of euthansia (voluntary, then involuntary), eugenics (Iceland's anti-Down syndrome push), -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 11:07:14] - a: some truth in that, but this is where the wording of the poll question would be especially pertinent. - mig
[2018-02-01 11:02:55] - specifically the "obligated" part. ~a
[2018-02-01 11:02:46] - xpovos: "obligated to be pro-legislation against abortion" can you expand this part? ~a
[2018-02-01 11:02:32] - mig: agreed. though, i'd hazard a guess that many people (this board excepted) equate immorality with illegality. ~a
[2018-02-01 10:58:54] - mig: Absolutely correct. I can be not pro-sex outside of marriage, but still be totally OK with it not being illegal (thanks libertarianism!). On the other hand, there are lines. I am pretty much obligated to be pro-legislation against abortion, though obviously there is nuance to be had. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-01 10:19:53] - also: things change. - mig
[2018-02-01 10:18:22] - a: Is this poll posing the questions as moral acceptability = illegality/legailty? because thinking something is immoral and thinking something should be illegal are very clearly not the same thing. - mig
[2018-02-01 10:14:30] - a: Yeah, NVDA is the ticker starting with N that I regret not picking this time around (NFLX last time). Both were finalists. Luckily, they're both big holdings in my real portfolio. I thought MZOR had potential to be a big winner or loser. Glad it's been the former, but I'm still surprised it's up this much this fast. -Paul
[2018-02-01 09:51:40] - paul: oh wow. yesterday acbff wasn't my #1 (go nvda). more wow, your #1 (mzor) has my #1 beaten. i guess it's you now that has the single runaway stock. ~a
[2018-02-01 09:25:26] - xpovos: that's a good point, i hadn't considered that viewpoint. so, maybe the 10% we're looking at is actually much greater 10%, if a lot of people feel the way you do. ~a
[2018-01-31 18:05:38] - I haven't slugged in a while. I'll pick up slugs more, but even that is much less common now. I have a fairly regular carpool with in-building coworkers who have a similar enough schedule and live close enough to me that we can actually make the old-fashion kind of carpool work. And since we're all in the same building it's better than slugging. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-31 18:04:35] - a: I think it's fairer to say most of them aren't thinking it through, but in my opinion that adds to the hypocrisy. I think very few of them would admit to being OK with abortion, but many are probably secretly grateful/happy in the event of a miscarriage. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next