prev <-> next
[2018-03-15 13:25:28] - please wake our son up
[2018-03-15 13:15:58] - daniel: here's a different way of thinking about it. lets say it is just fucking rampant abuse. nobody has cancer, but someone is constantly getting "sick". if people give PTO to that person, they get to decide whether or not that person "deserves" the PTO. if the company gives PTO to that person, effectively *everybody* is giving that person their PTO unwillingly (indirectly, assuming corporate profits are a constant). ~a
[2018-03-15 12:43:38] - I don't like corporations shifting burden's onto employee's but maybe this is one of those problems that the "market" has to solve and not HR even if I don't like it. Hmmmm. -Daniel
[2018-03-15 12:42:44] - Maybe like matching policy? Like for every 5 hours donated corporation also donates 1 hour or 2 hours or something? Yeah I get that it would be a pain for HR to just straight up be giving PTO to people. Maybe in the emails if the managers just made it less emotional? But then that might make less people donate which would be objectively worse for the employee who needed it. I don't know. Maybe it is the best solution currently. -Daniel
[2018-03-15 12:27:47] - paul: agreed. especially if it were a larger company. as it is right now, though, at 7 people, it would be pretty hard to game. ~a
[2018-03-15 12:17:28] - a: Yeah, and I have to imagine that would be an easy policy to abuse if word ever got out. -Paul
[2018-03-15 12:12:28] - i thought bereavement is after someone dies. opm. i also checked a few other websites and they all said the same thing: attending a funeral, etc. ~a
[2018-03-15 12:08:55] - daniel: so there's no sort of bereavement leave or anything like that? even pragmatics has that (even though it's really small, like 2 days). - mig
[2018-03-15 11:55:33] - daniel/paul: i'm also torn. it's something i kinda deal with on a direct basis. people run out of pto pretty regularly and i'm not sure what to do when it happens. lwop immediately? that's kinda harsh especially if it's a one time thing. or a temporary situation. i've never outright given people pto. but i have let people "go negative" on their pto balance for short periods of time. and i have used lwop before. ~a
[2018-03-15 11:49:40] - Daniel: And I don't know the specifics, but I have to imagine that even keeping the person employed is a bit of a good deed. For example, if somebody is out of work for months and have burned through PTO and are taking unpaid leave or whatever, the company is still spending a lot of money on health insurance (maybe). -Paul
[2018-03-15 11:48:23] - Daniel: Like, I would hate to be the HR person who has to figure out the guidelines for who gets extra PTO. "Sorry about the cancer your mom came down with, but you only get an extra 50 hours of PTO because we already established with Billy that spouses get an extra 60 hours and we can't top that." -Paul
[2018-03-15 11:46:26] - Daniel: I kinda agree with you, but I'm torn. On the one hand, what your company is doing is better than nothing, even if it's not the best they could be doing. I can see why they would want to do it this way, though, in that it removes the difficult decision of who deserves extra PTO from them. -Paul
[2018-03-15 11:34:03] - It all feels manipulative to me to place a burden on fellow employees to solve this employees problem instead of the corporation. Am I just being an ass? Like part of me definitely feels like one when someone is having an issue and the company says do you want to help? Thats not a terrible thing to ask but if the company itself doesn't do anything then it seems disingenuous to present that they care about the employee. -Daniel
[2018-03-15 11:32:32] - I bring this up because its come up a few times recently at my work and the email that goes about it definitely lays out the tragedy without getting to personal but definitely playing on emotions some, brings up the fact that the person is out of / about to be out of PTO and then the policy where we can donate hours and be helpful to our coworker in their time of need and ends with thanking us for supporting the employee. -Daniel
[2018-03-15 11:29:58] - So companies sometimes have a policy where if someone has some shit situation arise in their personal life (death of someone, house burned down, hurricane, etc) that eats up their PTO then other employees can give some of their extra PTO to the employee with said hardship. Now on one hand thats nice to be able to do. On the other hand if the company really cared why don't they just give them some extra PTO? -Daniel
[2018-03-14 15:04:12] - and also probably racist/sexist? - mig
[2018-03-14 15:03:54] - paul: well it goes back even further than that. Remember when John McCain was the greatest threat to humanity? - mig
[2018-03-14 15:00:41] - mig: I do think it goes back a little bit to when the media seemed to jump on any excuse to call candidates like Mitt Romney racist/sexist/etc so that when the time came where there WAS a candidate who could accurately be called those things... people became tone deaf to it. -Paul
[2018-03-14 14:59:43] - Daniel: I struggle with the smugness thing when I assume that ~90% of the US population is ignorant and/or votes dumbly.
-Paul[2018-03-14 14:09:04] - I'll admit I struggle with the smugness thing sometimes, but its hard when I feel like the other political side is more interested in anti-intellectualism and anti-science than critical thinking. -Daniel
[2018-03-14 14:00:51] - "Senator Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down the barrel on an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz". - mig
[2018-03-14 14:00:20] - paul: you could apply it to post-Marjory Stoneman Douglas, as well with all the "blood on your hands", "you want children to die" commentary that was going around. - mig
[2018-03-14 13:28:37] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/opinion/sunday/smug-liberals-conservative-trolls.html The more I think about this, the more I think it's an accurate way of looking at the current political discourse in this country. I assume it was written before Hilary had her speech in India, but it fits the narrative well. -Paul
[2018-03-13 08:38:56] - aaron: ah, yeah, my solution runs in ~0.1 seconds in slow-ass python. ~a
[2018-03-12 21:11:12] - a: i got up to s(n) = 20 and my current solution will be viable for s(n) = 60 in about 2068, assuming moore's law holds up. ...check back with me then?
- aaron[2018-03-12 11:00:44] - aaron: amazing. i'm glad at least one person suggested canadian-911. his response: "that would be admitting defeat"
~a[2018-03-12 09:55:22] - https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/18/9173621/ryan-north-stuck-hole-twitter comic writer gets stuck in a hole and twitter saves him, point-and-click adventure style - aaron
[2018-03-12 07:49:02] - a: hmmm 2^60 is a big number. ...and there are almost definitely decks in the 2^59-2^60 range which will return to their original configuration after 60 shuffles. ...i still haven't really found a pattern but i'll give it a shot - aaron
[2018-03-11 16:01:54] - aaron: project euler today is doable, imo. ~a
[2018-03-10 18:35:14] - a: Neck and Neck (for 2018 at least). It's crazy to me that 3 months in two of my picks are up over 30% -Paul
[2018-03-09 16:16:27] - paul: wow, did we switch again? so exciting! ~a
[2018-03-09 09:44:01] - a: That's my guess. -Paul
[2018-03-08 16:38:02] - paul: so . . . both?
~a[2018-03-08 16:20:41] - More seriously, I don't know the answer. I always figured there was some small "float" of cash in mutual funds from incoming money or dividends that haven't yet been reinvested and so they take it out of that. Assuming that's not enough, then they sell some shares. I could 100% be wrong, though. -Paul
[2018-03-08 16:19:40] - I agree with everything in the link Daniel posted. Sounds like smart people there.
-Paul[2018-03-08 16:10:27] - "this has the net effect of reducing the amount of income available to shareholders. in some cases, funds don't hold income-producing assets. for such funds, expenses are paid directly from cash held by the fund. a fund can sell assets in order to generate the cash necessary to pay expenses. this will reduce the net asset value of the fund by the amount of the expenses taken." yeah, this implies "both" too. income=dividends here? ~a
[2018-03-08 15:49:22] - https://www.fool.com/knowledge-center/how-am-i-charged-for-total-expense-ratio.aspx - says they take it out of $ they generate or sell some and get paid from that which just reduces the amount that everyone else has. I'm not sure if that helps. -Daniel
[2018-03-08 15:38:29] - "indirect relationship" nahh, i'm not discussing an indirect relationship. i'm wondering, when a fund takes a "fee", how explicitly is that fee taken? they don't take money out of my account (for this kind of fee). so how is the fee taken? ~a
[2018-03-08 15:35:36] - daniel: you're right, they are pretty close. looking at the 2017 fee (in the "SEC yield" column) 1.78% vs 1.80%, i agree that looks close. but we're talking about a .02% difference in fee anyways (.04%/year vs .02%/year). ~a
[2018-03-08 15:23:08] - So then as a separate question I'm not sure why those two funds have slightly different dividends. They are pretty close but not exact. They come in at different times. Maybe they are processed on a different date for just random administrative reasons and that extra week of difference makes the amount slightly different? I'm not sure. -Daniel
[2018-03-08 15:22:00] - I'm still confused by the question I guess. I am unaware of a direct relationship between price of shares in a mutual fund and dividends for a fund and the fees / expenses paid for a fund. The indirect relationship would be that those two things contribute to the dollar amount you have invested in that fund and the dollar amount you have invested is used to determine the fee paid as an expense ratio. -Daniel
[2018-03-08 15:16:00] - paul/daniel: vtsax vs vitpx is my real-world example. they both have more or less the same portfolio, but very different dividend %s/year. ~a
[2018-03-08 15:09:32] - paul: "possibly selling some shares if necessary" yes, that's what i meant by "price". selling some shares would affect the NAV, i agree. so, are you implying that they don't also keep some of the dividends as a fee? or are you also in the "both" camp? ~a
[2018-03-08 15:08:09] - daniel: "price and dividends factor into the dollar amount your assets are worth when figuring out your invested assets" so your answer is "both"? yes? ~a
[2018-03-08 14:01:27] - a: Expense ratio's I thought were just a percent of assets in the fund at the time it is charged. So price and dividends factor into the dollar amount your assets are worth when figuring out your invested assets (assuming reinvesting dividends). -Daniel
[2018-03-08 13:59:42] - a: "do they use the price to take out the fee?" I'm not sure I understand. I assumed they just flat out took money out, possibly selling some shares if necessary. -Paul
[2018-03-08 13:48:04] - daniel/paul: finance question. when a mutual fund (an index fund) takes a fee out of your fund, do they use the price to take out the fee? or the dividends? or both? i haven't seen discussion of that anywhere in the prospectuses. ~a
[2018-03-07 16:39:53] - I actually almost had a request for time off denied once, but I got around it by using a deferred holiday instead of vacation. Rekt! Outplayed! - mig
[2018-03-07 16:39:03] - a: most of my projects have been super lax about asking/granting time off. Its only been up until recently where I've come across somewhat formalized processes for asking for time off, but that's been understandable because the projects were/are under a little more pressure in terms of deadlines. - mig
[2018-03-07 12:03:21] - daniel: also . . . taking time off can be a real problem if you're on a project that has a lot of stuff happening. ~a
[2018-03-07 12:03:16] - daniel: "cap out their PTO but I have never gotten anywhere near that" some companies have roll-over rules that are very strict. i remember the pto rules at raytheon were super lame: you can only roll-over 40 hours after december 31st, and on september 30th you have to have all of your previous years hours spent. i've also heard of companies (government mostly) where PTO has to be approved in advance. ~a
[2018-03-07 12:00:05] - aaron: oof. i don't know if that's good news or bad news. ~a
[2018-03-07 11:43:54] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/arnold-schwarzenegger-joins-kung-fury-feature-film-1085102 dunno if everyone here saw Kung Fury -- but apparently arnold schwarzenegger is going to be in the sequel? - aaron
[2018-03-07 11:30:22] - a: Yikes! I always here about people who cap out their PTO but I have never gotten anywhere near that. If I ever get to 80 I start getting real liberal with reasons to take days off unless I'm saving up for something specific. -Daniel
[2018-03-07 11:23:48] - http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/why-millennials-dont-take-holidays-20161220-gtf26j.html - "in 2015, americans left 658 million vacation days unused. 222 million of those days were lost because they could not be rolled over, meaning americans worked $61 billion dollars worth of time for free." ~a
[2018-03-06 15:02:40] - .5 tb *micro* sd wtf. i'm still today blown away by 1tb ssd drives, this is like 1/1000th the size. ~a
[2018-03-06 15:01:41] - 9x in five years? . . . amateurs. ~a
[2018-03-06 14:46:21] - https://www.thestreet.com/story/14510408/1/netflix-stock-is-trading-as-if-a-blockbuster-deal-is-coming.html?puc=CNBC&cm_ven=CNBC I know I've said this a few time, but I still can't believe how much NFLX has gone up in the past year or so. "Netflix shares have been on fire this year, up a mind-blowing 50%. Shares of the streaming king are up more than 1,000% in the past five years" -Paul
[2018-03-06 14:32:50] - a: I don't know much about the "average cost-basis method". Sorry. -Paul
[2018-03-06 14:32:28] - Sorry. Been afk much of today. I don't have any video cards I'm not using that aren't probably around 10+ years old. Is the cryptocurrency mining craze affecting even older and lower end video cards? -Paul
[2018-03-06 10:55:48] - a: In the articles I read they didn't talk about long term or short term sales so not sure where that fits into the equation. So not sure I know how to help. Sorry! -Daniel
[2018-03-06 10:52:13] - daniel: yes, but how do you decide if a sale is long-term or short-term? i can . . . keep a queue of buys and pull off that queue, but i was under the impression (maybe this is incorrect) that avg-cost doesn't require a queue of buys. ~a
[2018-03-06 10:40:37] - a: I am not overly familiar with it as I don't have $ in taxable accounts currently. After reading about it briefly I'm not sure what makes the second sale different than the first? It averages up the price of shares you bought - then compares to current sale price. I think it would just do that again for the second, third, .... sale? -Daniel
[2018-03-06 10:32:11] - daniel/paul: do you understand the average cost-basis method? it's the vanguard default. i don't understand it. i completely understand how to calculate the average cost basis of a bunch of buys, and what to do for the first sale. but the second sale eludes me: how do i decide if the second sale is a short-term or long-term sale? do i still need to keep a queue of buys to figure this out? ~a
[2018-03-06 10:22:03] - Anyone have any spare video cards laying around that are semi recent? Mine died over the weekend and the market for a new video card is bananas right now. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 13:51:36] - a: heh heh nice
- aaron[2018-03-01 13:50:09] - https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8165sx/google_maps_is_different_in_other_countries/ google maps is different in other countries - aaron
[2018-03-01 12:15:33] - Paul: Yeeesss.... Let the hate flow through you! -Daniel
[2018-03-01 12:06:13] - Daniel: It's fine that there's only 40 "resistance" members (not rebels anymore) because Yoda now has the power to call down lightning from the after-life. -Paul
[2018-03-01 11:59:00] - aaron: have you seen notkenm? this made my morning. ~a
[2018-03-01 11:51:29] - Yeah and then it got even worse story wise in TLJ because now the rebels are down to like 40 people all on the Millennium Falcon, Luke dead, and the stupid light speed ramming as a canon thing now. Like well now its just gone to shit. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 11:38:16] - Daniel: I guess I would put it somewhere between the prequels and the original trilogy... ahead of Last Jedi. -Paul
[2018-03-01 11:37:41] - Daniel: Yeah, it was really problematic how they basically reset everything so that 6 never happened (and then just renamed the groups). It's a testament to how good the rest was in that it didn't ruin the movie for me. Maybe it should be moved down some, though. Hard to figure out where to rank Rogue One. -Paul
[2018-03-01 11:26:53] - double post!
[2018-03-01 11:26:48] - Force Awakens was good because it was finally a return to the stories and chars we loved but was the beginning of the end when it comes to story. Hey you know how you thought the rebels won in that previous trilogy! WELL THEY DIDN'T! SUCK ON THAT! So loses points for me. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 11:26:48] - Force Awakens was good because it was finally a return to the stories and chars we loved but was the beginning of the end when it comes to story. Hey you know how you thought the rebels won in that previous trilogy! WELL THEY DIDN'T! SUCK ON THAT! So loses points for me. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 11:23:43] - 6>5>4>7>Rouge One> ??? with the prequels and last jedi in there in some order. I'd have to rewatch them if I was actually trying to watch them. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 11:07:38] - a: Ha, apparently I haven't seen nearly as many Ron Howard movies as I thought. Apollo 13 might be the only one. -Paul
[2018-03-01 11:02:51] - paul: i believe he reversed them as well . . . i mean i guess > and < are sometimes used as "arrows" instead of greater-than signs. bit-shifting in programming for instance. ~a
[2018-03-01 11:01:56] - paul: disagree, ron howard is not a solid director. apollo 13 was excellent. backdraft and a beautiful mind were ok. nothing else
~a[2018-03-01 11:01:40] - mig: I assume you accidentally reversed your < and > signs? -Paul
[2018-03-01 11:01:27] - a: Surprised 4 is so low? I think if you take it as a stand-alone movie, it loses something. It seems to get too much credit for being "the first". In many ways, I think 6 (or even 7) is a superior version of the "destroy the big battle station" film.
-Paul[2018-03-01 11:00:04] - a: It could be recency bias (in a way). It's more modern than all of the others outside of 8, so it has some of the best visuals in that sense, and the jokes haven't felt overplayed yet. I dunno. Some days I could rank 6 highest or even 5. -Paul
[2018-03-01 10:58:52] - 6<5<4<7<3<2<8<1 - mig
[2018-03-01 10:58:42] - paul: i'm also surprised to see 4 where it is for you. weird! ~a
[2018-03-01 10:58:09] - a: I'm undecided on Solo. I'm a little tired of Star Wars prequels, and I don't know if Solo has a compelling backstory I care about, but nothing in the trailer makes me think it'll be terrible. Ron Howard is a solid director. -Paul
[2018-03-01 10:57:54] - paul: very surprised to see 7 in your #1 slot. diffing our ordering, it looks like we have 1 and 2 switched, and we have 4/5 and 6/7 switched, (sort of). ~a
[2018-03-01 10:56:16] - paul: jar jar wasn't the only reason i hated 1. ~a
[2018-03-01 10:55:50] - paul: solo looks like it'll be a bad movie. which makes me sad because i love the solo and lando characters. the solo and lando characters are two of the main reasons i liked empire strikes back so much. ~a
[2018-03-01 10:55:44] - a: At the same time, sometimes I wonder if the hate on 1 has gone too far. Yeah, Jar Jar is a little cringe-worthy, but it did have Qui-Gon and Darth Maul.
-Paul[2018-03-01 10:54:57] - a: Oof, ranking the movies is hard. I think I would go 7>6>5>4>8>3>1>2? Geez, I could really swap like any of those last 4, though. So hard to compare the prequels with the other movies since they're so different feeling. I remember thinking 2 was underrated, but then I saw a portion of it recently and it looked terrible. -Paul
[2018-03-01 10:52:07] - Daniel: Yeah, I was pretty disappointed in it too. Sad thing is, I wanted to like it. -Paul
[2018-03-01 10:50:06] - paul: i liked the last jedi. good, not great. newly discovered plot-holes of return of the jedi not withstanding, 5>4>6>7>8>3>2>1. ~a
[2018-03-01 10:45:30] - I think in their desire to turn it into an every year franchise they didn't care if the movies were good or not. Hard to make a franchise on that scale of bad movies. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 10:44:53] - Paul: Naw, it was pretty bad. Had a few interesting bits to it. But mostly pretty bad. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 10:44:34] - Daniel: It does seem like considering the turmoil behind them, the Star Wars movies are living on borrowed time and keep getting lucky. Rogue One was apparently a disaster behind the scenes and Solo had its director replaced. It also feels like Disney is in danger of oversaturating us with Star Wars movies. -Paul
[2018-03-01 10:43:22] - Daniel: "how bad last jedi was" Interesting. You thought so too? I can't remember if we discussed this or not, but I've felt like most people I talk to thought it was great. -Paul
[2018-03-01 10:41:06] - Paul: I'm curious to see if Solo is the first Star Wars movie to fail at the box office after how bad last jedi was and how I'm not sure anyone really cares about it. -Daniel
[2018-03-01 09:12:05] - https://uproxx.com/movies/what-was-lukes-plan-star-wars-return-of-the-jedi/2/ This is a good point... -Paul
[2018-02-28 13:37:06] - e-commerce uber is already a thing (amazon prime now). maybe we could combine all three. some sort of open bazaar now. ~a
[2018-02-28 13:35:54] - paul: yeah that's a great example. and i don't think i'd be shaking my fists at the drones delivering my shit. i think we could maybe peer-to-peer more things (for example peer to peer e-commerce). and uberizing more things. really i'm actually surprised there isn't a peer-to-peer uber. ~a
[2018-02-28 13:33:47] - a: Would love a dissolution of the current political parties, but I'm done holding my breath.
-Paul[2018-02-28 13:32:31] - a: Could be ecommerce, the big disruption that is happening right under our noses. Will there be any malls in 20 years? Will we get most of our routine purchases delivered automatically by drones instead of having to visit grocery stores to get toothpaste? -Paul
[2018-02-28 13:27:48] - dissolving the current political parties would be like the internet arriving.
~a[2018-02-28 13:25:58] - paul: so we weren't promised that we could send money over the internet. we also weren't promised that we could vote over the internet. is voting over the internet maybe the thing that will just fucking appear in 2024? maybe if voting on referendums gets easier, then there will be more referendums? and representative democracy will get less representative-y? ~a
[2018-02-28 13:23:03] - paul: hah. uhhh. probably not, but i guess that would be nice.
cryptocurrencies are an interesting class of things, in that i couldn't have even imagined them in 2004. what won't i be able to imagine today? ubiquitous self-driving-cars are maybe the jet-packs of the 70s. sometimes these "promises" tend to not come to pass, but the things we weren't promised just fucking appear one day. ~a[2018-02-28 13:15:47] - Daniel: Yeah, I suppose they are all social media. There's hope for me yet! -Paul
[2018-02-28 13:15:19] - a: Cryptocurrencies.
-Paul[2018-02-28 13:08:44] - daniel/paul: completely fair on both accounts. i think not being on a subset of the internet is a different class than not being on the internet at all. it's like a whole different level of out-of-the-loop-ness. shaking your fist at the internet in 2004 is like shaking your fist at smartphones in 2014. i honestly don't know what that'll even be in 2024, let alone 30 years from now. ~a
[2018-02-28 13:06:15] - Paul: Those seem to fall under a social media umbrella to me. Is there some key defining idea that separates snapshcat and whatsapp from being text message programs on different servers with different rules? Snapchat seven seconds or whatever. That doesn't seem that out of touch to not be up on those specifics. At least to your fellow 30 something. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 12:59:13] - a: Sure, I don't WANT to be out of touch, but I feel like it's inevitable. I was late to twitter and instagram. I don't use snapchat. I don't even know what WhatsApp is. I dunno, it feels like these are things I would've learned about earlier back in college. -Paul
[2018-02-28 12:52:48] - a: I'm definitely going to be the laggard when it comes to social media. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 12:52:40] - paul: "i already feel like I'm out of the technology loop as it is" do you have any examples on why you feel this way? not being on the bleeding edge is one thing, but you've got a smartphone that you use, you use the internet nonstop (obviously), what non-bleeding-edge shit are you out of the loop on? ~a
[2018-02-28 12:46:05] - daniel/paul: i remember thinking about those old people shaking their fists at the internet (and computers and cellphones etc) and thought to myself that i didn't ever want to be that person. i won't always be on the bleeding edge, for sure, but i also won't, hopefully, ever be a laggard. maybe i need to open a snapchat account? ~a
[2018-02-28 12:43:13] - I think we are more used to things moving at a rapid pace and that keeping up is a thing that you will have to do for basically your whole life. This could also just be wishful thinking on my part. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 12:42:47] - Paul: As a related tangent I wonder if we will have the same 'not as comfortable with new technology'-ness that the last two generations have had. I also wonder this in relation to music. I think the people used to learn how the world worked and that was basically it with occasional changes but generally it was spread out some. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 12:38:32] - Can you all imagine how scary the world is going to be like 30 years from now when we're not as comfortable with new technology (presumably) and the threats are even more complicated? I already feel like I'm out of the technology loop as it is and am sympathizing more and more with the old people who shake their fists at the internet. -Paul
[2018-02-28 12:11:12] - a: Scary times. Yeah I think as much as possible if I went down the smart home trail I would try to avoid Wifi stuff though thats what the nest uses so already have at least one extra thing on there. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 11:55:31] - daniel: sucurity webcams and plugs can (and have) taken down the whole fucking internet before. your own webcam/plug/etc will be bleeding your network dry and you won't even know it's happening. hell, it could be happening right now. what would the "symptom" even be? good botnet operators know to keep the symptoms low. ~a
[2018-02-28 11:53:29] - daniel: not necessarily computing power, but as an access to the network & internet for sure. nest i'm less worried about (because i think you're focused on security). i'm more worried about simpler devices like plugs and cameras. and it's real and totally happens: security webcams are hacked all the time. stories like this (googled "botnet iot"). ~a
[2018-02-28 11:46:14] - a: Ha, I had not thought about a virus using my nest for its computing power. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 11:33:54] - Daniel: Basically none. We have an echo dot, but don't use it for anything. We have wireless thermostats that we can control from our smartphones, I suppose, and I think I can control a garage door opener with my phone too, but have never done it. -Paul
[2018-02-28 11:29:25] - daniel: i play around with zwave a little bit (i have a few devices i can turn on and off with zwave). though i'm not a huge fan of wifi enabled devices. they seem to be a huge security problem (i'm not worried that someone will hack my device and turn on and off my shit. i *am* afraid a virus will use my shit in a botnet). ~a
[2018-02-28 11:26:17] - How much home automation do you guys have? Have you looked into any of it before? I have smart thermostats currently but thats it. Trying to decide if I want to go down the rabbit hole somewhat in trying to make cooler features like auto turn on lights. -Daniel
[2018-02-28 11:18:56] - a: Oof. Celgene keeps killing me. Really wish I had chosen NVDA over them. At least NVDA is 3x bigger in my portfolio... -Paul
[2018-02-27 16:41:30] - daniel: agreed. really i think there's multiple problems with that title. ~a
[2018-02-27 16:37:41] - Paul: Anything with the phrase "beat the kids" is going to be tough to accept as reasonable. -Daniel
[2018-02-27 16:36:04] - Daniel: Yeah, I mainly just wanted a sanity check to make sure it wasn't just me. Again, not even trying to be critical of CNN... but I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who felt like that particularly headline was maybe a bit far. -Paul
[2018-02-27 16:34:47] - a: No idea. I didn't click on it. I saw it was labelled, "analysis", which makes me think it was probably some sort of editorial piece. I'm not even necessarily saying it was wrong of CNN to make it their main story headline.... just feels like they're not even trying to be even-handed when it comes to this issue. -Paul
[2018-02-27 16:17:53] - Paul: Unbiased political headlines are hard. That said that seems pretty biased. Though to be fair there is some kids (being the kids from parkland who have called out the NRA) vs the NRA so maybe less crazy? But still pretty bad. -Daniel
[2018-02-27 16:16:46] - paul: sensationalist is the word you're looking for. (to be clear, i agree it's also biased). "man oh man" and "um, fix" and "senate-ed" and "stop me if you've seen this movie before" and "ditto" and "tweetstorm" makes me think this is an op-ed piece. is it? ~a
[2018-02-27 16:06:57] - Not necessarily trying to start a big debate, but I just visited CNN.com and the main headline, in big letters, is: "How the NRA beat the kids, again". Just wondering if people think that is an unbiased headline or not. -Paul
[2018-02-27 07:05:36] - a: I've got a few companies that pay like 4%+ in dividends which even if it just stayed flat forever would be a fair good return. -Paul
[2018-02-27 07:05:05] - a: Yeah, it's weird how I sometimes find scorecards or financial calculators that DON'T include dividends. I guess I kinda understand why (harder to track, some people don't reinvest, etc), but it can make such a huge difference! -Paul
[2018-02-27 07:04:22] - a: Got it, I think I made the same mistake before too.
I'm losing my mind. -Paul[2018-02-27 07:04:01] - aaron: I can see the resemblance, but either it would be heavy make-up or he has aged poorly.
He's not listed on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7297578/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm). -Paul[2018-02-27 00:20:35] - paul: i'm like 80% sure that kevin mcdonald is in that papers please video at 3:44... - aaron
[2018-02-26 14:10:03] - paul: dividends recently have been about 2% per year. historically, dividends have been closer to 4-5% per year. i wish there was a correlation between interest rates and dividend rates, but i don't think that's the case. ignoring dividends is like ignoring fees but in the other direction.
~a[2018-02-26 13:48:13] - paul: funny story about that. i created a financial simulator (similar to firecalc) and it was coming up with some doom and gloom predictions for me. then i realized that i wasn't calculating in dividends. dividends make a huge difference in the long run; way more than fees ever would. ~a
[2018-02-26 13:47:54] - paul: "if they aren't paying going forward, shouldn't I just remove it?" no, i don't think you understand. the dividends were .45 between may 2017 and today. if they aren't paying going forward, it'll be .45 at the end. it's not "per year" or anything like that. it's a flat amount. "moot". yeah, agreed there. dividends don't really matter until you scale them over multiple decades. ~a
[2018-02-26 13:13:37] - a: Well, if they aren't paying going forward, shouldn't I just remove it? Either way, I think the point is moot. Highly unlikely MELI's dividend is going to make a difference.
-Paul[2018-02-26 13:09:27] - title: haha, that's cool! i think that is because 3.5 * pi ≈ 11. i found these too: sin(355) and sin(2829)
~a[2018-02-26 12:55:53] - ok, i think .5 (.45 actually) is right for meli. but i've definitely seen yahoo report incorrect dividends before, and i only really add them in every six months or so, so if any of the dividends are wrong, please change them. ~a
[2018-02-26 12:52:47] - paul: oh wow, i'll have to check it out - aaron
[2018-02-26 12:50:45] - a: Um... I mean they had a dividend that they paid out, and they aren't going to in the future. I think part of the problem is the dividend might've been in a foreign currency so it might change based on currency fluctuations. -Paul
[2018-02-26 12:46:29] - i think .5 is right though. i see .15 in june, september, and december. you think .5 is wrong? ~a
[2018-02-26 12:44:02] - i assume you mean the dividend was never actually granted? they didn't like . . . give you a dividend then take it back?
either way, yes you should remove it from the spreadsheet. ~a[2018-02-26 12:16:43] - Sorry, that was me. -Paul
[2018-02-26 12:16:38] - a: I believe Mercado Libre got rid of their dividend. Should I remove it from our spreadsheet?
[2018-02-26 11:33:46] - aaron: http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/02/25/papers-please-short-film-out-now-free-to-watch I know you liked Papers, Please. They apparently made a short film about it. I found it surprisingly gripping. -Paul
[2018-02-26 11:16:58] - a: "i'm not sure i agree with this part either. there are fewer gun owners." Agreed, I sacrificed precision for brevity. Your statement is more accurate. -Paul
[2018-02-26 11:16:24] - a: "gun violence went down after it went up. there was a peak in 93. that's the full(er) story" Yup. Agreed. Basically, I'm sure the number of guns does impact gun deaths, but it seems like there are larger forces at work that can easily override it. Put another way, number of guns doesn't seem like the most impactful thing. -Paul
[2018-02-26 11:14:32] - paul: "more guns have been in circulation" i'm not sure i agree with this part either. there are fewer gun owners. i'm not sure if it matters (as much) that there are more guns. ~a
[2018-02-26 11:10:11] - xpovos: yeah, i agree with both of you on all of this. fewer guns = fewer gun deaths seems to be a cool thing that is true except when it isn't. if you look at only homicides, or only the united states, yeah, the numbers get a little fuzzy. ~a
[2018-02-26 11:09:04] - paul: yeah "gun violence has gone down" this is the only part i disagree with. gun violence has gone down is an oversimplification. gun violence went down after it went up. there was a peak in 93. that's the full(er) story. ~a
[2018-02-26 10:37:12] - a: So, yeah, it could still be that more guns = more gun deaths, but there appears to be other factors in recent history which has overridden that trend. Maybe we can latch onto those things. -Paul
[2018-02-26 10:36:42] - a: Right, I'm not saying there is some causation to where more guns means less gun deaths. The point was that over a fairly significant period of time (two decades) gun violence has gone down while more guns have been in circulation. -Paul
[2018-02-26 10:36:09] - Changing the subject, this might be relevent to people's interests. https://wealthyaccountant.com/2018/02/26/problem-discovered-in-tax-bill-will-leave-many-owing-the-irs-big-next-year/ -- Xpovos
[2018-02-26 10:35:27] - And probably just as relevent today as when I edited and posted it last year, or when I initially wrote it two-three years ago: https://rampantdiscourse.com/the-gun-cult-ure/ -- Xpovos
[2018-02-26 10:33:16] - Noted that my 2nd and 3rd links don't work right. #2 retry (https://i.imgur.com/1so909s.png) #3 retry (https://i.imgur.com/IzPABTT.png) -- Xpovos
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
[2018-02-26 10:31:58] - But even it if spiked to 8.0, it would still be SUBSTANTIALY lower than the height of the 1980s/early-1990s. I'm not sure homicide rates are the right metric to look at, honestly, but it's another data set. And it probably, also is ultimately showing no coorelation. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-26 10:29:32] - The data points from the same source for 2012-2016 (latest available) are 4.7, 4.5, 4.4, 5.3. So 2016 was quite a spike year. 2017 is probably also going to be spiked up as high, if not higher, at least based on news reports. 2018 isn't looking much better yet. -- Xpovos
[2018-02-26 10:26:56] - a: Another politically biased graph. (http://www.hoboes.com/library/graphics/politics/gun%20control/Homicide%20Rate.jpg) and possibly a rebuttal of same (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-454db02986e4bf351c765b32221bf05b) and a revised version of the same data (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0e54b16781bb590b2454ea0d3cd45927) -- Xpovos
){kind=link}
[2018-02-26 10:19:20] - though, i guess if your point is that there is no correlation, i totally agree. ~a
[2018-02-26 10:18:42] - paul: American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. awesome. ok, i'll try to re-source then. looks like you should look at a bigger time-range. bigger range of times. so, looks like it's not even a good correlation you've got there. (population went from 218 to 293 during that time. also ownership of guns is fairly linear) ~a
[2018-02-26 10:11:35] - Not trying to use it to prove anything, but just showing that I don't think it's as simple as saying more guns means more gun deaths and/or less guns means less gun deaths. There are a lot of variables involved and I think we too often get too focused on the gun aspect (which also happens to be the aspect we politically have the biggest problem changing). -Paul
[2018-02-26 10:09:38] - http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/ One more point I thought about over the weekend that I might've made before, but I'm not sure. This is a few years old, but nothing I've read indicated things have changed. Over the past 20 years or so, gun homicides have gone down while more guns have been in circulation. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:17:09] - mig: sure maybe, although that would only be relevant in the past 5 years or so whereas the decline of smokers predates that - aaron
[2018-02-23 12:16:45] - Okay, I'm done for now, sorry, need to get some work done. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:16:25] - a: More seriously, though, I think a lot of people don't realize that schools are pretty safe and the media seems like it's preying on this ignorance. Seems like non-stop coverage from CNN about how the students are screaming to be heard and everything and will lead where our leaders will not. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:15:23] - a: "can you put to bed the whole..." Sure, I just am not certain exactly what I am arguing against at any given time (school shootings, mass shootings, gun deaths, gun homicides, gun ownership, etc). Although if you're allowed to bring it up to prey on people's emotions I should be allowed to bring it up to win points.
-Paul[2018-02-23 12:14:05] - aaron: So, yeah, maybe to Daniel's point about changing the gun culture, we just need more... I dunno, PSAs about how guns aren't cool and kill people? I don't know if I think that's a good use of money or if it would be effective, but maybe that's something to consider. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:13:00] - aaron: Like before, people would laugh and joke around if somebody got in their car and drove off swerving around the road, but now we've all been shown the dangers of drunk driving and so we (largely) don't accept it nearly as much. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:12:20] - aaron: Regarding smoking, I read somewhere that the big reason why drunk driving deaths are down big over the past few decades has less to do with laws against drunk driving and more to do with the social acceptance (or lack thereof) of drunk driving in society. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:11:26] - Sorry, I have to go in the next few minutes, so I'll just respond to a few things... -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:09:40] - aaron: or maybe they are vaping instead? - mig
[2018-02-23 12:04:24] - paul: can you put to bed the whole "school shootings [is] probably not as big a problem as they think" argument? we all agree with this. the only time i bring up school shootings is when i think it'll affect the population's willingness to vote for a law that restricts gun use. ~a
[2018-02-23 12:03:40] - paul: i can't think of any reasons why guns would be different. if alternatives (pepper spray, tasers, whatever) were made available for home use, if there was a lot of public awareness campaigns about the hazards of gun ownership and gun alternatives, and if gun prices were increased by %300, i think gun culture would change drastically - aaron
[2018-02-23 12:01:53] - paul: "most of those countries don't have nearly the same number of guns that we already have in circulation" this is a problem that can be solved by affecting how new guns get sold. if you can decrease the number of guns produced and sold each year, you can decrease the number of guns in use each year. and i do see that more guns is correlated with more gun deaths, so i see that as a net-positive. ~a
[2018-02-23 12:01:17] - Daniel: Attacks from immigrants have happened. Is it as often as gun violence? Obviously not. But I do think it shares some similarities to school shootings at least in the sense that it's something that people focus on as a huge problem when it's probably not as big a problem as they think. -Paul
[2018-02-23 12:00:59] - paul: i'm just bringing it up because i think it's an example where in the 1980s people could say stuff like, "ehh you can ban smoking in bars or increase cigarette taxes, but the same people will still smoke." and then 30 years later, maybe people *do* still smoke but their children don't because it's expensive and they understand the side-effects from having watched a million gross commercials - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:59:50] - paul: for example, russia's laws were very pro-smoking until 2013 and they have about 2,600 smokers per capita versus america's 1,700 smokers per capita, partially owing i think to the fact that we charge about a million dollars per cigarette and spend millions of dollars on superbowl commercials telling people that smoking is bad - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:59:41] - Daniel: "there isn't actually an immigrant / attack problem" Why do you say that? I could make the same argument that there isn't a school shooting problem based on the article I linked to before. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:57:53] - a: Also, I look at a number of other countries like the US which has a lot of guns and not nearly as many gun deaths. So I don't think it's a simple matter of saying more guns = more gun deaths. There is something that makes each country a little different. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:57:16] - Paul: I think the immigration / attack analogy doesn't work because there isn't actually an immigrant / attack problem. -Daniel
[2018-02-23 11:57:13] - a: Mainly because I think most of those countries don't have nearly the same number of guns that we already have in circulation and they don't have nearly the same protections on gun ownership that we have in our country. I don't think those laws would pass, and if they did, I think "from my cold dead hands" becomes literal for lots of people. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:57:12] - paul: "we can hope this affects our gun culture and reduces guns..." possible straw man here, but do you think smoking would have declined as drastically in the US without the insane amount of taxes and legislation introduced around the 1990s making it prohibitively expensive and inconvenient to smoke? - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:55:40] - I thought Trump's immigration restriction was a perfect example because sure, it MIGHT prevent a terrorist from getting into the country, but it excluded most countries where foreign-born terrorists had come from in the past. And in the meantime, it would wrongly hurt the vast majority of immigrants from those countries who wish us no harm. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:54:43] - a: sure, that "fix an actual problem" approach to laws is fine but it results in scenarios where 6 fatal shootings become 6 injuries because of punitive regulations against hollow-point bullets in a specific state (good), but then one naive mother ends up in jail because she didn't understand the complicated state-by-state law (bad... but outweighed by good.) i think to avoid that, you really need a small number of simple laws - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:54:35] - And the only reason I kept bringing up those analogies is not to try to equate immigrants or soda with guns. I was actually more trying illustrate differences than show similarity. With most other laws we (I hope) ask for evidence that it will work and rightly criticize them when we find reasons it won't. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:54:13] - paul: why aren't you convinced when there are tons of countries that have solved this problem? ~a
[2018-02-23 11:53:39] - paul: we can often look at similar situations though. a lot of laws that curb gun ownership do work very well in countries that don't have our second amendment. ~a
[2018-02-23 11:52:38] - So yes, we can hope this affects our gun culture and reduces guns in circulation and reduces mass shootings and gun deaths and all else, but is it likely to? I'm (obviously) unconvinced. Doesn't mean I am right at all. I could very easily be wrong. But I suspect the problem isn't that mass shooters didn't take enough community service. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:50:43] - and here I am the pro-slaughter jerk who refuses to compromise on anything and just keeps pooping on ideas and spouting off his dumb analogies. But at the heart of things, I'm just asking that we consider what these laws actually WILL do as opposed to what we HOPE they do. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:49:39] - aaron: Yes, you put it much more succinctly than I did. I basically worry about all of the unintended consequences of these laws. Another way to think of it is that laws should be judged on what they do, not on their intentions. Yes, the intentions for all these proposals are pure and good and hard to argue with... -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:45:00] - aaron: "laws should be simple and there should be very, very few of them" i think the way he worded it initially is compelling: laws should be fixing an actual problem, the laws should actually fix the problem, and the harm done with the law wouldn't outweigh the benefits. this doesn't seem unreasonable, does it? ~a
[2018-02-23 11:43:34] - paul: sure, i see your point. laws should be simple and there should be very, very few of them - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:27:19] - aaron: Sure, but that doesn't mean federal laws can't do the same thing. It's just as easy for a federal law to be passed outlawing guns in... lets say bars, and maybe somebody didn't hear about it. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:26:07] - Daniel: In other words, suicidal people might be more on the fence on if they want to end their lives and so if you put minor obstacles in their way, it could deter them. Still not sure what law I would support for that, but I think it makes more sense. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:25:28] - paul: the second link doesn't necessary seem like a downside of gun-laws, but a downside of regulating that stuff at the state level and not the federal level - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:25:05] - Daniel: Or, if you insist that the only way to solve this problem is by restricting gun sales in some way, I would focus on gun suicides. I believe studies have shown that having a gun in the home makes suicide attempts more lethal (without a gun, they might just try to OD, which is less effective) and that those people aren't as motivated to get a gun. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:23:39] - Aaron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use Maybe guns aren't the ideal solution, but it sounds like it's an effective one for a lot of people. Even low end estimates are in the tens of thousands (although I don't know if that is US or world). -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:21:40] - Daniel: I feel very confident that ending the drug war would reduce gun violence more than any gun control law that has a chance of being passed would ever do. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:21:30] - paul: sure, i would lump that under "an increase in crime" and "not feeling safe in their homes" and it's a shitty problem, but perhaps not one best solved by adding more guns - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:20:48] - Daniel: I suspect people who want to kill are going to find a way (cars, bombs, knives, etc). Yes, guns probably make a lot of them more effective, but I don't think if you find some law that could completely keep guns out of their hands, they decide to live peaceful lives. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:19:41] - Daniel: Repeal the drug war. Part of my stance is that everybody is way too focused on the gun aspect of all this violence. I doubt most people just pick up a gun laying around and think, "Well, I was a good person before, but now I have a gun in my hands, let's go kill people." -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:18:37] - aaron: I'm not against less guns. I'm fairly ambivalent. I don't own a gun. I'm a little uncomfortable being around guns. So sure, less is probably better. I just can't think of a law that would effectively disarm the "bad people" while not screwing over a bunch of "good people". -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:16:53] - Paul: Can you give examples of more regulations that you would support? I would concede that guns are regulated already though I'm not sure about the "incredibly" qualifier. I would also concede that I'm starting from the position that current regulations seem insufficient given the current levels of gun violence and shootings that occur so am therefore viewing that as a problem in need of a solution. Hence this conversation. -Daniel
[2018-02-23 11:16:25] - aaron: And gun laws can often sweep up completely law-abiding (except for accidentally running afoul of gun laws) people (https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/08/08/shes-a-law-abiding-single-mom-with-a-concealed-carry-permit-the-reason-she-faces-over-11-years-in-jail-is-almost-unbeli -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:15:32] - aaron: There are plenty of downsides to more gun control laws. Some people who could legitimately need a gun for self defense might have trouble getting one (http://freebeacon.com/issues/new-jersey-woman-stabbed-to-death-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit/). -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:13:48] - Daniel: "opposed to all forms of gun control" Again, this is pretty wrong. Guns are incredibly regulated already. I'm not even opposed to more forms of regulation. I just want some evidence that it would be effective and that the trade-offs aren't too extreme. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:12:26] - - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:12:15] - paul: i kind of agree with daniel though. the only tradeoffs i can think of to reducing the number of guns are things like... an increase in crime, a decrease in vigilanteism (the good kind of vigilanteism), people not feeling safe in their homes, things like that. but i guess you could say the same thing about reducing the number of land mines. what tradeoffs are you thinking? would they apply to any attempt to limit gun ownership? -
[2018-02-23 11:09:05] - paul: you could be right, it might just be my personal bias as someone who occasionally drinks soda and owns no guns - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:08:34] - Soooooo at some point I would just ignore you and your political desires and just vote to ban all guns probably and support people who wanted to just roll back the 2nd amendment. Like it wouldn't be my starting point but if literally nothing satisfies your criteria I'm not sure where to go from there. -Daniel
[2018-02-23 11:07:47] - Paul: Mostly what I feel like I'm getting out of this is that you are opposed to all forms of gun control because we can't prove that they will be effective and that if people are willing to break the law then laws about guns are irrelevant so why bother to limit freedoms. Like its getting harder to even envision a compromise that would suit you? -Daniel
[2018-02-23 11:04:04] - aaron: Sure, I don't deny that reducing the number of guns is sound logic. I disagree with the means and the trade-offs. That's been my criticism. Just like with my soda analogy, I'm sure that making people do community service to get 2 liter bottles would somehow reduce obesity, but I think it's an odd requirement and not worth the trade-off. -Paul
[2018-02-23 11:00:26] - paul: well, you were speculating that my line of logic was, "guns are so dangerous that we just try random things with no basis in logic, like this wacky community service idea," and i'm saying that reducing the number of guns is based in logic, so it's not exempt from this consideration - aaron
[2018-02-23 11:00:25] - aaron: "one could argue like, 'hey if there were half as many guns, it might not change anything'" you're being to generous. that's already a ridiculous argument. ~a
[2018-02-23 10:59:18] - paul: so i don't think daniel's wildly speculating that making all gun owners do community service will reduce gun violence; he's just saying that if there were 90% fewer guns, then there would be fewer gun-related deaths, and one way to reduce the number of guns is to make it a pain in the ass to get one - aaron
[2018-02-23 10:59:15] - aaron: Yes... I agree that if there were zero guns, then it would reduce gun-related deaths.
I'm not sure how that's related to what we're talking about, though. -Paul[2018-02-23 10:58:22] - "When a student is a victim of homicide, it’s much more likely to happen outside of school than at school." -Paul
[2018-02-23 10:58:11] - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-safety-2015_us_5728cf31e4b016f37893a4fb And it's worth noting in the midst of all this hysteria over how we shouldn't have to worry about our kids being shot at school, that in many ways, schools have been getting safer and safer. This article is a few years old, but I imagine most of it still holds true. -Paul
[2018-02-23 10:58:00] - paul: "I think you are arguing that guns are so uniquely dangerous and non-utilitarian that they deserve a special dispensation from this consideration" no, but i think it's obvious that reducing the quantity of guns reduces the amount of gun-related deaths. one could argue like, "hey if there were half as many guns, it might not change anything" but if nothing else, if there was one gun, or zero guns, that would have an effect - aaron
[2018-02-23 10:52:26] - Daniel: And as cruel as it sounds, a few lives saved here or there is kinda a rounding error. Heck, we might be able to save more lives by getting rid of daylight savings time (https://fee.org/articles/daylight-savings-time-literally-kills-people/). -Paul
[2018-02-23 10:48:40] - Daniel: Maybe one mass shooter a year is prevented from getting a gun which saves one or two lives because it takes him a few seconds longer to reload (all of this depends on how we define a mass shooting). A few lives saved a year seems like the most optimistic result. -Paul
[2018-02-23 10:46:16] - Daniel: Less likely to follow through on an extended schedule of community service, but still likely to follow the law if they're planning on shooting up so many people that they need a this more powerful gun (however we define it)? Sure, I'll grant you that it's possible... -Paul
[2018-02-23 10:35:36] - on twitter, honestly, I just shrug and move on for the most part. - mig
[2018-02-23 10:35:08] - paul: I mean still it's kind of expected. I get a little more concerned when something billed as a "town hall" ends up turning into a hate rally. - mig
[2018-02-23 10:18:13] - Paul: I don't know that mentally unstable people would get better due to community service but I think its also less likely a mentally unstable person would be able to commit and successfully follow through on some extended schedule of community service to earn the more powerful guns. Impossible? No but less likely in my head. Thus it seems to be a compromise to make it a bigger hurdle to get the bigger guns w/o making it impossible.-Daniel
[2018-02-23 07:22:57] - And these aren't just random twitter trolls. They're actors from the show. People with a following that are poisoning the political discourse by associating anybody they disagree with with being pro-slaughter. I find it pretty disgusting, actually. -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:20:26] - mig: To "fuck off" and "eat shit" and railing against their "pro-slaughter agenda". Yes, they used those exact words. I understand being angry at the NRA. But it's really outside the realm of any kind of normal civil discourse to accuse them of being pro-slaughter. -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:16:53] - mig: To your point, I'm getting a little depressed about the lack of civil discourse around this too. Just last night I saw some tweets by people involved with Parks and Rec who were upset that the NRA used a gif of their show. Lots of comments directed at the NRA telling them... -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:15:36] - Daniel: But if we're talking about preventing gun deaths and not just focusing on mass shootings, then I think there's very compelling evidence that if we remove the prohibition of drugs, we reduce gang violence in general and that naturally brings down gun violence more than even eliminating all mass shootings could do. -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:14:29] - Daniel: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/22/at-cpac-a-pitch-to-end-the-drug-war-its Also, you asked about my solution to gun violence, and I am super embarrassed that I completely didn't think of the obvious answer: End the Drug War. No idea why this slipped my mind... -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:13:40] - Daniel: And I'm a little uncomfortable with the implication that anybody who wants a gun more...powerful? than a revolver needs some sort of conditioning. Wouldn't it be creepy if we replaced community service with going to church or something? -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:12:48] - Daniel: I got what you meant, and I guess I agree that it is outside the box thinking. I guess I'm just unconvinced that mentally unstable people are going to magically get better because they clean up some litter around their county (or that they won't just steal their parents' guns). -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:08:19] - aaron: If I had to guess (and please feel free to correct me), I think you are arguing that guns are so uniquely dangerous and non-utilitarian that they deserve a special dispensation from this consideration. Is that fair? -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:07:03] - aaron: But it's not because I think guns and soda are the same or guns and immigrants are the same. -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:06:37] - aaron: So yes, I suppose in some way I am associating soda and guns in that I think ALL things we regulate needs to have some baseline of "logic" (for lack of a better term on my part) that I hope the law meets. -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:04:57] - aaron: I think all laws that we consider should pass those criteria, regardless of how deadly a thing they're trying to regulate. So yes, even if we're discussing something as simple as a soda ban, I don't think we should be banning sodas willy-nilly without addressing those three things. -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:03:32] - aaron: And I would like some evidence that the harm done with the law wouldn't outweigh the benefits (like, we could execute all males and probably drastically reduce gun violence, but that solution would violate this principle). -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:02:26] - aaron: So I would like to see a problem that clearly needs solving (check, in this case, gun violence is clearly a problem in need of solving). I would also like to see some clear evidence for why this would significantly help (as I've mentioned before, I don't know if this proposal would)... -Paul
[2018-02-23 07:01:19] - aaron: As a libertarian, I have a natural bias against laws. I feel like in order for us to pass one and invest in enforcing it (a non-zero cost) and harming people's live for breaking it, there should be a good and compelling reason for the law. -Paul
[2018-02-23 06:59:59] - aaron: I've been giving this some thought since yesterday, and I think I know where we differ. I'll do my best to explain with as few dumb analogies as possible.
-Paul[2018-02-23 06:59:29] - aaron: "10% of the people with the most Y chromosomes" That's sadly probably the best predictor we have of potential mass shooters at least and maybe even for gun violence in general. -Paul
[2018-02-22 16:45:41] - sorry that was confusing! I messed up that sentence and was trying to fix it. -Daniel
[2018-02-22 16:45:30] - It was an idea that I thought seemed outside the box and not one I had heard before about a way to try and have a way to both restrict gun ownership without outright banning more dangerous firearms and perhaps reduce the rate of violence as hopefully community service would increase one's connection with said community. -Daniel
prev <-> next