prev <-> next
[2018-03-29 13:18:40] - Or you think there level of badness doesn't warrant the media coverage they get because you don't think they are actually that bad? -Daniel
[2018-03-29 13:16:57] - So I'm trying to understand some underlying point or if its really just in your opinion eh they aren't that bad. -Daniel
[2018-03-29 13:16:24] - Paul: This is so confusing for me, whats your point in all this? You are defending white supremacists on some level and I'm not sure why and its unsettling for me a bit. -Daniel
[2018-03-29 13:13:04] - Daniel: So do bathtubs, and probably at higher numbers than white supremacists. -Paul
[2018-03-29 13:11:21] - Paul: Because white supremacists kill people? -Daniel
[2018-03-29 13:10:34] - Daniel: My point is that I hear very little in the mainstream media about any worries about the violence of antifa. I've heard probably 20x more about worries over the violence of white supremacists. -Paul
[2018-03-29 13:09:54] - Daniel: Or, if we want to be more PC, Christianity? -Paul
[2018-03-29 13:09:47] - Paul: Sure I concede Antifa is violent. I'll even go 100% violent if you want. I'm not sure what your point there is? -Daniel
[2018-03-29 13:09:25] - Daniel: Would you say Islam is non-violent? -Paul
[2018-03-29 13:06:53] - Paul: So I think I could agree that recent white supremacy marches have been less violent from their side than other protests / marches. But to go from that to the an idea that the white supremacist movement as a whole is non violent seems crazy to me given its history and ongoing actions of white supremacists. -Daniel
[2018-03-29 13:03:28] - Daniel: Whereas it seems like something closer to 50% (maybe even more?) of antifa is violent. I'm saying there's degrees of differences in terms of percentages of those two groups that are violent. At the same time, we're also comparing a specific group to a larger political movement, so it's likely not an even comparison. -Paul
[2018-03-29 13:02:32] - Daniel: I'm saying given that for the all of the white supremacist marches of the past year or two, there has only been one incidence of violence associated with them (that I have been made aware of, I could be totally wrong here), it seems like maybe 1% (and probably smaller) of the white supremacist movement is violent. -Paul
[2018-03-29 12:56:26] - Paul: I guess on some level I can understand a not all rectangles are squares argument type thing but I'm not sure I can agree given the history of the White Supremacy movement and how its pretty thoroughly rooted in violence. I would probably agree that Antifa seems rooted in violence too if that makes you feel better. -Daniel
[2018-03-29 12:54:24] - Paul: So you think there are violent white supremacists but that its unfair to call white supremacy a violent movement? -Daniel
[2018-03-29 11:57:50] - I'm just trying to draw the distinction between violent groups, and groups that might have violent individuals associated with them. -Paul
[2018-03-29 11:57:23] - Nearly all political ideologies of any significant size will have individuals who do terrible things (sometimes in the name of their ideology). There are Islamic terrorists, that doesn't mean I think Islam is a violent religion. I'm sure there are self-described libertarians who have done terrible things too (OKC bombing, maybe?). -Paul
[2018-03-29 11:55:51] - By contrast, the white supremacist movement doesn't seem to have that same core violent aspect to it. Yes, there are individuals who hold those same positions that go on to do terrible things. I'm not denying that at all. I'm just saying those are exceptions rather than representative of the group. -Paul
[2018-03-29 11:54:06] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) Let me see if I can articulate the differences better: It seems like antifa's main purpose in life is to go around smashing things up and punching nazis, or whatever. It seems to be a core part of what they are. -Paul
[2018-03-29 11:36:56] - Daniel: I see the connection of maybe some shared political beliefs, but I don't necessarily see a stronger connection between those and the shooter with Bernie. Do you think one connection is stronger than another? -Paul
[2018-03-29 11:35:15] - a: Because I'm differentiating between all the violence done by right-wing people and the specific people that were participating in those marches. Do we have any evidence those people are tied at all with the white supremacist marches other than by some shared beliefs? -Paul
[2018-03-29 11:19:22] - paul: "the violence by THOSE people during the marches has been pretty sparse" why do you keep saying this thing that's been debunked multiple times? 140 people is sparse? most, if not all of those 140 people were killed/injured by THOSE people. how many people has the alt-left killed/wounded? ~a
[2018-03-29 10:21:07] - Paul: You don't see any connection between those marches and the incidents of right wing violence I gave the link for? I think you might be right that those specific marches have ended in less damage than some of the ones that miguel linked for Antifa. If that is the extent of your point then ok. -Daniel
[2018-03-29 10:15:04] - Daniel: Basically, we don't seem to have roving bands of white supremacists visiting towns and smashing stuff up (I don't think). Outside of a few isolated individuals, it sounds like those marches have been largely peaceful. -Paul
[2018-03-29 10:14:01] - Daniel: Whereas it seems like we DO have a specific group of people who more often than not do use violence and not many people seem to be worrying about them. -Paul
[2018-03-29 10:13:26] - Daniel: I'm fine dropping the point, because I have little desire to defend white supremacists and I was more just off-the-cuff musing, but I was just thinking about how much worrying there was about these white supremacist marches when I think the violence by THOSE people during the marches has been pretty sparse. -Paul
[2018-03-29 10:12:28] - Daniel: I don't know how Rand Paul got dragged into this, but sure, I guess that's part of my point (although I would actually associate the Charlottesville driver more with that march than I would tie the shooter with Bernie). -Paul
[2018-03-29 10:05:04] - Paul: Maybe I've lost the original point in the thread but just as you don't blame Bernie Sanders for that guy I wouldn't blame Rand Paul for the charlottesville driver. -Daniel
[2018-03-29 08:27:42] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting For example, I don't hold Bernie Sanders responsible for this guy. -Paul
[2018-03-29 08:25:57] - a: Admittedly, I realize it's a fine line I'm walking, but I DO think there is a difference between a group that has individuals in it who sometimes commit terrible crimes and a group whose main purpose seems to be punching nazis, or whatever. -Paul
[2018-03-29 08:24:43] - a: Right, but did you see my line? "antifa is a specific group, so I'm not sure comparing them to right-wing terrorism is the right comparison". I'm pretty unfamiliar with most of the individuals you guys linked to, but were any acting within the context of a larger group? -Paul
[2018-03-28 20:49:08] - he argued that if a game can't show you its greatness in its first 2 or 3 plays, it's not a great game. and i argued that if you played twilight struggle 2 or 3 games you'd be completely confused and think the game was chaotic and random. and he countered that after that many plays he could already see the depth in the game, which i conceded - aaron
[2018-03-28 20:47:52] - do any of you know who Tom Vasel of Dice Tower Reviews is? he came to island games yesterday! i played dungeon petz with his daughter. and him and i argued about board game mechanics a little - aaron
[2018-03-28 17:19:46] - mig: you're right about that. also i retract my statement. the original quotes are both stupid. and like you said, laced with hatred and bigotry. ~a
[2018-03-28 17:11:59] - paul: and you propose it is possible that the white supremacists have been on average less violent than antifa? you seem to have some problems with your facts on both sides of that equation. i've read miguel's links and i don't see any deaths. ~a
[2018-03-28 17:11:56] - paul: "Is there more I'm forgetting about?" yes, yes, there are more. did you see my link or daniel's link? mine suggested 110 people killed and injured. daniel's link suggested 140 people killed and injured. you read those, right? ~a
[2018-03-28 15:40:19] - a: no deaths. - mig
[2018-03-28 15:22:13] - a: I'm still not following. I mean, you can choose to not be Muslim. But I suspect you'd probably have a problem if someone condemned all Muslims as terrorists. - mig
[2018-03-28 14:12:17] - a: Well, out of all the white supremacist marches and whatnot over the past few years, how much violence have they carried out? I can only recall the car killing. Is there more I'm forgetting about? -Paul
[2018-03-28 14:11:24] - Daniel: Well, antifa is a specific group, so I'm not sure comparing them to right-wing terrorism is the right comparison. Granted, I don't exactly know how to define "white supremacists" as a group... -Paul
[2018-03-28 14:05:36] - paul: "is it possible that the white supremacists have been on average less violent than antifa?" what makes you say that? ~a
[2018-03-28 14:04:51] - mig: there are zero deaths in your links, right? i didn't read all four links, i just searched for "kill" "death" and "murder". ~a
[2018-03-28 13:58:34] - Paul: Technically, I've never seen DH9 either. I mean I've seen fractions of episodes, I think. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-28 13:54:18] - I would agree that the acts linked do constitute significant violence I'm not sure they rise to the same level as the acts in the right wing terrorism page. -Daniel
[2018-03-28 13:52:53] - For comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#United_States -Daniel
[2018-03-28 13:50:53] - from that link: According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right-wing extremist groups.[40][41].
[2018-03-28 13:50:34] - Paul: I don't think antifa is more violent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_States -Daniel
[2018-03-28 13:47:45] - mig/paul: "and it not being racial matters because?" i can't choose whether or not to be mexican. ~a
[2018-03-28 13:16:38] - mig: Yeah, and it's interesting because so much of the media coverage has been about white supremacists and the one who killed that protester with his car. Obviously that incident was terrible and much worse than this antifa stuff (unless I missed something), but is it possible that the white supremacists have been on average less violent than antifa? -Paul
[2018-03-28 13:09:36] - https://www.dailywire.com/news/20343/timeline-antifa-violence-january-%E2%80%93-august-2017-frank-camp?amp
[2018-03-28 13:07:03] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-bell-curve.html
[2018-03-28 13:05:21] - https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/33027/
[2018-03-28 13:01:37] - daniel: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html - mig
[2018-03-28 12:54:52] - mig: Maybe I'm out of the loop somewhere but I'm not sure I'm familiar with the "significant instances of actual physical violence" committed by Antifa? -Daniel
[2018-03-28 12:51:54] - a: And I'm not certain its fair to label all those incidents listed as "Tea Party inspired". The Elliot Rodgers one jumps out at me, since none of his motivations for killing aren't even political motivations. - mig
[2018-03-28 12:45:37] - a: first off there should be a distinction made between Tea Parties vs. Trumpists. Trumpists are indeed a problem w/ regards to violence, no argument there. But that's a very different beast than the Cruz/Lee/Rand Paul crowd. - mig
[2018-03-28 12:32:31] - "and it not being racial matters because?" This is one of those things where (like I alluded to before), one side might see something as uncivil and another not. -Paul
[2018-03-28 12:31:54] - mig: Whereas I don't really hear anything in the media about how liberals have been rallying around this cry of basically explicitly resisting anything and everything Trump stands for. -Paul
[2018-03-28 12:30:56] - mig: Somewhat related, I got to thinking about this when I saw a "resist" bumper sticker on a car on the way to work today. I remember there being a lot of (sure, let's use the term) hang-wringing and claims of racism when a Republican was heard implying they were going to oppose whatever Obama tried to do... -Paul
[2018-03-28 12:29:35] - a: and it not being racial matters because? - mig
[2018-03-28 12:29:20] - a: "i'm watching ds9 for the first time" Wait. WHAT!? You've never seen DS9? How did I allow this to happen? -Paul
[2018-03-28 12:25:35] - mexicans are a race. the nra isn't a race. a slight problem with your analogy. ~a
[2018-03-28 12:24:46] - hypothetical hand-wringing ~a
[2018-03-28 12:23:29] - And we can also look at Donald's Trumps "Mexicans are rapists!" remarks vs. David Hogg's "The NRA wants to keep killing children". One was mostly universally condemned, the other near universally lauded, though both statements to me seem laced with hatred and bigotry. - mig
[2018-03-28 12:21:22] - mig: to argue that nobody in the alt-right (or the tea party) have been violent seems to be ignoring the facts. alt-right violence isn't hypothetical or hand-wringing. ~a
[2018-03-28 12:17:51] - Compare that with Antifa, a group that explicitly advocates and has committed significant instances of actual physical violence, and the response has been a lot more muted. And very rarely are democratic politicians hauled in to be pressed about antifa. - mig
[2018-03-28 12:16:11] - And generally whenever some loud mouth fringe Tea Party member says something stupid virtually every conservative politician is pressed and asked about whether they agree with such stupid thing. - mig
[2018-03-28 12:14:11] - There was definitely a lot of hand-wringing about all the scores of hypothetical violence that could be committed due to the overheated Tea Party rhetoric, to the point where there were articles written worrying about a potential assassination of President Obama because it was supposedly so bad. - mig
[2018-03-28 12:10:09] - paul: I think the more pertinent question for me is not, "whose incivility is worse overall" more so than whose incivility is generally tolerated. As an example we can talk about the Tea Party vs. Antifa. - mig
[2018-03-28 11:52:11] - paul: i'm sick this week (i'm sick again, actually) and i'm watching ds9 for the first time. i'm currently halfway through season two. ~a
[2018-03-28 11:40:05] - https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Star-Trek-Actress-Marries-Leonard-Nimoy-s-12785267.php I don't know why, but I find this weird. Okay, I should start doing some work now.
-Paul[2018-03-28 11:34:50] - a: Yeah, index funds are for suckers.
-Paul[2018-03-28 11:27:06] - paul: if you haven't lost money in 2018, you're in second place
~a[2018-03-28 11:10:51] - I feel like somebody heard me bragging about my portfolio being up 20% this quarter and decided, "I'll show him". -Paul
[2018-03-28 11:08:02] - Also, holy hell there is a sale on some of the biggest holdings in my portfolio today.
-Paul[2018-03-28 10:33:37] - Also, I'm sure there could be some disagreement in terms of what counts as "civilized" debate. Some on the right might think it perfectly legitimate to question things like gender differences while others on the left might think it completely inappropriate... -Paul
[2018-03-28 10:32:44] - So, serious question, but what do people think in terms of if Republicans or Democrats (or conservative or liberals, if you prefer) are more or less "civilized" in terms of the average tone and tenor of debate? I feel like the stereotype is that the right is more full of "deplorables", but could that be a matter of media bias? -Paul
[2018-03-28 10:29:44] - we can teach AIs to dream. and we can teach them to learn from their dreams? wtf, wow, the future is here. do androids dream of electric sheep? ~a
[2018-03-28 10:26:54] - mig: ha. ~a
[2018-03-28 10:10:00] - btw I'm glad to see calm, reasonable, discussion about gun policy happening over the weekend. - mig
[2018-03-28 10:02:24] - "shouldn't the justices in theory respect them equally" yes. until they retire
~a[2018-03-28 09:58:58] - a: Also, weird combination of the two topics: Does Google ever kinda scare you with how prescient they are? I started typing: "is the bill" and the second result was "is the bill of rights part of the constitution?" How!? -Paul
[2018-03-28 09:58:02] - a: Isn't the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution too, though? Also, while I know you might have mixed feelings about some amendments over others, shouldn't the justices in theory respect them equally? -Paul
[2018-03-28 09:53:56] - a: Like, we need to make absolutely sure that Comcast never ever ever has the slightest ability to slow down Netflix..... but Facebook definitely needs to block access to certain websites. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it's close... -Paul
[2018-03-28 09:53:16] - a: Re: NN, I wasn't trying to trick you into anything.
I'm also not calling on more regulation for Google or anything. It was mostly just me musing that people seem to be worrying about the wrong things while ignoring (and maybe even encouraging) actual censorship-type stuff in other realms. -Paul[2018-03-28 09:48:56] - It's of course more troublesome if he indeed let his feelings about the 2nd amendment influence his dissent in Heller. - mig
[2018-03-28 09:39:42] - paul: I don't think it's unusual for a supreme court justice to advocate for repealing an amendment, per was ~a says. If anything I prefer it when the anti-gun crusaders are honest about what they want. - mig
[2018-03-28 09:01:27] - paul: though, i think you've tricked me into calling this regulation
we don't call the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment a "regulation". nor the 15th amendment. we don't call the civil rights act "regulation". ~a[2018-03-28 08:53:02] - paul: it's much easier for the markets to topple the search monopoly than the isp monopoly. the isp monopoly is built into right of way contracts and (worse) laws. it does make me sad that yahoo has died. and msn has died. and aol's portal has died. these are steps in the wrong direction. away from a diverse market. ~a
[2018-03-28 08:48:01] - paul: you have a good point with "search". i agree that it's a good viewpoint. why are we ok "regulating" the network neutrality isp monopoly, where we aren't "regulating" the network neutrality search monopoly. the only thing i can say about that is that it's better than it once was. in the 90s and 00s, search was a bigger deal than it was before facebook and twitter (and reddit, and baidu, and wikipedia, and qq, and vk) came along. ~a
[2018-03-28 08:43:35] - paul: "the constitution, which justices are supposed to uphold" article 5 is part of the constitution. they're supposed to uphold article 5. i understand seeming unbiased though. "the whole free speech thing is a mistake" nah, not every part of the constitution is equal. let's all strive to amend the bad parts of the constitution. ~a
[2018-03-28 06:33:32] - a: Look, in either case I don't think regulation is the answer, but I think it at least needs to be addressed as a concern at least on the level of ISPs potentially throttling traffic. Power differences or not, we're also talking the difference between a company MAYBE slowing something down versus a company already admitting to banning certain things outright. -Paul
[2018-03-28 06:32:15] - a: If Google decided that some political candidate needed to be squashed and never heard of or that everybody needs to forget that Sinbad played a genie in a movie called Sazaam, I think it's possible they could go a long way towards making that happen. -Paul
[2018-03-28 06:30:34] - a: I agree it's a different kind of monopoly power, but it's still powerful. In a lot of cases you can choose your isp, and in extreme cases you can use a cellular network or drive to a nearby internet cafe or even move. I don't know where on Earth you could move where Google doesn't have a stranglehold on search. China? -Paul
[2018-03-28 06:27:56] - a: Understood that it's part of the constitution, but I still think it's weird. You don't think it would be weird if Sandra Day O'Connor came out saying: "Yeah, pretty sure the whole free speech thing is a mistake, let's repeal that". The Amendments are currently part of the constitution, which justices are supposed to uphold. -Paul
[2018-03-27 23:13:58] - paul: regarding network neutrality: you can choose to use or not use google, or facebook, or twitter, or amazon, or apple, or reddit, or the thousands of other websites. in most cases you cannot choose your isp. you have one choice unless you live in only a few locations. the monopoly of broadband isps is kinda crazy. i'm happy that the broadband cellular market is more diverse. ~a
[2018-03-27 22:55:27] - paul: ok sure you've convinced me. let's repeal the 2nd amendment. i'm not sure why it's weird that stevens would be for the legal modification of the constitution. modifying the constitution is literally part of the constitution . . . article five. i guess if he wasn't *former* that might be a problem because he'd have a hard time seeming unbiased. ~a
[2018-03-27 21:22:02] - Okay, sorry about that. I'm done now. Just wanted to get this off my chest since my memory has been bad lately and I didn't want to forget.
-Paul[2018-03-27 21:21:29] - I'm curious what the gun control people here think. If we passed some super strict law that basically outlaws everything but muskets or something (think one of Daniel's proposed laws), and gun violence gets reduced by... 25%. Wouldn't the natural thing be to call for more gun regulation? -paul
[2018-03-27 21:19:35] - And if this regulation was passed and then another school shooting happens? Well, that's also evidence we still have a gun problem and need more regulations to fix it. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:19:00] - I would think the narrative would be easy to craft too. If some "common sense" law was passed and gun violence went down, then that's a perfect argument for more since this small regulation helped, bigger ones would help more! -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:17:08] - And I think there's some truth there. Obviously it doesn't apply to all gun control people, but I think it's fair to say it applies to a lot. This is relevant now considering a former Supreme Court Justice (of all people!) just floated the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:15:59] - So basically, they see it as if they give in to one regulation, then the battle immediately moves to additional regulations and there will be no end. I imagine it might be similar to how pro-choice people view pro-life people. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:15:01] - Second thing, Gun Control: I read a comment that actually made me think a bit. It was a 2nd Amendment supporter theorizing that the reason why some fellow 2A supporters might be against even minor additional regulations on guns is because they know that for the majority of the other side, they won't stop until guns are flatly banned outright. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:13:11] - Now with this emphasis on fake news and foreign meddling and white supremacists and the new sex trafficking law and everything else, I'm worried these platforms are going to get even more stringent on banning things. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:11:27] - Austin Peterson is a candidate for US Senate for Missouri and had his Facebook page banned. He eventually got it un-banned by making noise about how Sheryl Sandberg was a big supporter of his opponent... -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:09:54] - And this is just the stuff that Google (and Facebook and Twitter and others) have admitted banning. I know there have been lots of people (mostly conservatives, but also libertarians) who have complained about being banned by social media for mysterious reasons. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:08:57] - And now youtube is banning videos that are showing assembly of firearms. I know these are things that aren't likely to find a sympathetic audience here, but I'm much more worried about the things that Google might be banning than what actions an ISP might potentially take in terms of prioritizing traffic. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:07:17] - Considering those are three of the biggest players in the online ad space, that seems like much more of a monopoly like problem than one ISP deciding to slow something down. Heck, even Google by itself probably has more sway than any single ISP. -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:05:57] - And yet we have many examples of companies like Google openly admitting to basically censoring things like pay day loan ads and cryptocurrency ads (something Facebook and Twitter are also doing). -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:03:59] - Net Neutrality: It seems odd to me that people were so worked into a frenzy over the possibility that ISPs might some day in the future slow down their traffic to certain sites that they were basically willing to give the government permission to regulate the internet... -Paul
[2018-03-27 21:02:52] - So, this is going to be super random, but I had two random political thoughts about past debates we've had (prompted by Twitter and listening to the Reason podcast on the way home from work). Feel free to ignore or respond, I just wanted to put this out there: -Paul
[2018-03-27 15:12:30] - daniel: link ~a
[2018-03-27 15:12:23] - daniel: you'll be disappointed. decompiled java code is readable, but just barely. most of the variable names are lost. all of the code comments are lost. it's much better than disassembling c++ code, but it's a poor poor substitute for the original java files. the decompiler that comes with intellij is the best one i've seen: it's called fernflower. ~a
[2018-03-27 14:31:42] - mig: Unknown - apparently there is a project in prod for which source was lost and now need to be updated so source needs to be reconstructed for the whole thing. But I don't know any details yet, just some broad strokes. -Daniel
[2018-03-27 14:16:57] - daniel: well jars and wars are basically zip files. You should be able to extract the contents and decompile the individual compiled classes. Do you need to decompile any jsps as well? - mig
[2018-03-27 14:05:26] - Apparently I have to try here at work. Going to try and go google stuff but figured I would ask. -Daniel
[2018-03-27 14:04:57] - Anyone ever had to take a java artifact (war / jar) and come up with the source for it? Like not just decompile a specific class but the whole thing?
[2018-03-27 13:21:56] - Ugh, my individual portfolio was looking so good until this past week.
-Paul[2018-03-27 12:23:05] - Daniel: Hey, I'm only at 4% for the year now. All it took was stupid FB having a meltdown and it bizarrely carrying over to their chief competition.
-Paul[2018-03-27 12:22:21] - Daniel: Thought it was funny how #UNDEFINED was apparently "higher" in terms of rank than Adrian and I for last year's challenge. -Paul
[2018-03-27 12:06:23] - Not sure why googlefinance was breaking for VT but apparently it was. -Daniel
[2018-03-27 12:06:06] - Yay I fixed my cells on the challenge! I'm not undefined anymore! Now just 0%.... -Daniel
[2018-03-27 11:42:33] - http://citronresearch.com/wait-til-the-senate-hears-twitters-hidden-secret/ Really starting to hate Citron.
-Paul[2018-03-27 07:50:38] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/andrew-left-shopify-will-plunge-if-facebook-takes-its-data-punch-bowl-away.html Great, now Facebook's troubles are bringing down SHOP too! Come on! -Paul
[2018-03-24 23:18:23] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMIIahxK5Jk This started a little slow, but I was laughing out loud by the end. -Paul
[2018-03-24 12:43:42] - paul: yeah or maybe it's hard to be against a "sex trafficking" protection bill.
~a[2018-03-24 11:32:30] - a: Huh, okay. I would be a little surprised, because this seems like it opens them up to a LOT more lawsuits, potentially. Maybe it's one of those non-intuitive things where more regulation is better for the big boys because it cements their place and makes it harder for smaller upstarts. -Paul
[2018-03-24 09:47:16] - paul: no not the bill. the internet companies have changed their minds (I don't have specifics). they're maybe not against the bill anymore? ~a
[2018-03-24 00:19:36] - a: Parts of the bill have changed? Since when? Because it seems like lots of internet sites are freaking out and taking stuff down now. -Paul
[2018-03-23 18:14:41] - though audrey says things have changed since then. ~a
[2018-03-23 18:11:57] - paul: "the Internet Association ... -- coauthored a letter condemning the Senate bill and said it would have a 'chilling effect' on companies". Nice
~a[2018-03-23 15:06:48] - http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/craigslist-personals-shutdown/index.html And apparently Craigslist is shutting down its personals section now. Also, didn't Reddit have an issue with revenge porn for awhile? -Paul
[2018-03-23 14:57:31] - https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-medias-marginalization-of-kyle-kashuv-shows-they-only-take-anti-gun-parkland-students-seriously/ Have any of you heard about Kyle Kashuv? He seems to only get mentioned in arguably partisan sources of news, but he actually seems less partisan than the other Parkland survivors that get more attention. -Paul
[2018-03-23 14:41:10] - Daniel: Is it fair to say they didn't do anything about it? Honest question, I don't know if they just turned a blind eye or if they addressed it when it was brought to their attention. I mean, isn't prostitution ads prevalent on Craigslist? -Paul
[2018-03-23 13:44:33] - Paul: Yeah I'm not sure its the right answer either. But its a weird position to have a website that apparently? / allegedly? was a nexus for child prostitution and do nothing about it. I don't know what the answer is though because yeah clearly their answer is hitting more broadly than just child sex trafficking. -Daniel
[2018-03-23 13:22:11] - Daniel: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/craigslist-reddit-fosta-sex-trafficking_us_5ab50538e4b054d118e222da And despite the first article's insistence that this won't be used against Google, it looks like other companies aren't taking chances. -Paul
[2018-03-23 13:21:08] - Daniel: And I guess I don't see how being able to sue/charge Backpage for what gets advertised on the site helps kids at all. Most likely result to me is that Backpage goes out of business and other companies get hyper-sensitive to the content on them. -paul
[2018-03-23 13:20:20] - Daniel: Bad as far as I've heard, Backpage not only has cooperated with law enforcement in terms of helping to prosecute child sex traffickers, but some (many?) law enforcement groups think the existence of Backpage is good because it makes these activities more visible to them instead of forcing it underground. -Paul
[2018-03-23 13:18:37] - Daniel: As I understand it, section 230 is about making it so that internet companies can't be held responsible for what users might do with their services. So if I advertise chemical weapons on Facebook or Craigslist or Backpage, they can't be sued. -Paul
[2018-03-23 13:17:28] - Daniel: Interesting. I don't have the best knowledge of this whole thing either, but I don't feel like the first article does a good job of explaining why this new law would help. -Paul
[2018-03-23 11:52:44] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/backpage-website-investigation-sex-trafficking-prostitution/
[2018-03-23 11:51:32] - I guess I haven't read a whole lot about it but I know its the topic that comes up on NPR as the justification for the change to section 230. -Daniel
[2018-03-23 11:51:03] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/opinion/google-backpagecom-sex-traffickers.html
[2018-03-23 11:44:52] - Daniel: "backpage wasn't really working to stop forced child prostitution" Do you have any more info on that? I don't doubt you, it's just not something I had read, so I want to read more. -Paul
[2018-03-23 11:43:13] - Paul: Like the new law came about because backpage wasn't really working to stop forced child prostitution which is about as awful as it gets. So finding a way to stop that certainly seems good, but finding a way to do it so that other things don't get trampled along the way is apparently tough. -Daniel
[2018-03-23 11:42:01] - Paul: All the stuff around section 230 is tricky - as is all free speech stuff at the heart - how do you find a way to say no to terrible terrible things without saying no to good things along the way? -Daniel
[2018-03-23 11:35:46] - Add that, in my opinion, we've lost a lot of lot of the American values that would've pushed back against things like this, and it may turn out that they're actually democratizing the more popular opinion after all. Gun enthusiasts are just the latest losers in the culture war. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-23 11:34:40] - Google, FB and the rest are different though, because we can't control them like that. We are the product and we're being sold to other companies so that those companies can better sell to us in a very ugly feedback cycle. As such, if Google, et.al. break trust with us, the backlash is secondhand at best. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-23 11:33:46] - Paul: I do get concerned, from time to time, about the censorship powers of corporations. In a lot of ways, the fears our forefathers had about the government are better represented in corporations now. But the differences are that corporations are already semi-democratic. The operate only as long as they make money, which means that if we don't like what they do, we just stop buying their products. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-23 11:18:02] - And while none of these are things I'm necessarily shedding a lot of tears over, I can't help but think of the old "First they came" thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...) -Paul
[2018-03-23 11:16:52] - I think anybody who knows me knows I'm usually not a person worried about companies having a lot of reach, but considering how much power Google has in search, their decisions to ban cryptocurrency ads, payday loan ads, certain gun videos and (yes, I'll say it), their reaction to the Google memo has me just a tiny bit concerned. -Paul
[2018-03-23 11:14:47] - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/22/596161899/restricted-by-youtube-gun-enthusiasts-are-taking-their-videos-to-pornhub This is... interesting. I don't expect people here to necessarily be worried about these gun restrictions from YouTube, but is anybody else even a tiny bit worried about Google and censorship? -Paul
[2018-03-23 10:36:31] - Concert: Anyone interested in seeing Too Many Zooz at Union Station June 7th? Too Many Zooz is a "brasshouse" trio from Brooklyn, N.Y. They've spent a lot of time working as buskers, but got popular enough to get gig work. I think Leo Pellegrino is probably a once-in-a-generation saxophonist. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-22 09:31:40] - In case I missed anybody here on my email: I'm trying to do ultimate frisbee this weekend (and/or basketball), so if you're interested and don't have an email from me, let me know! -Paul
[2018-03-21 17:52:14] - a: I don't see any reason why he would, but I suppose it's possible. Trump seems like somebody who wouldn't mind cutting back on free speech on the internet.
-Paul[2018-03-21 17:15:05] - are we all assuming trump won't veto the bill? ~a
[2018-03-21 17:07:37] - Paul: Just saw something that youtube is banning videos related to selling guns or gun accessories. Not sure if that is section 230 related or Parkland or both. -Daniel
[2018-03-21 16:50:25] - https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/863xcj/new_addition_to_sitewide_rules_regarding_the_use/
[2018-03-21 16:39:09] - Paul: Reddit banned a bunch of communities today because of it. Thats the only reason I've heard of it. Though I think I heard something about it on NPR the other day but didn't really note it as a big deal at the time. -Daniel
[2018-03-21 16:36:53] - https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/21/senate-passes-fosta-sex-trafficking-bill Anybody hear anything about this bill? I've only seen references to it in libertarian circles, but it seems kinda bad from a free speech online perspective. -Paul
[2018-03-21 16:19:31] - a: I've known I'm old for awhile.
-Paul[2018-03-21 16:17:39] - a: Um.. I wasn't thinking of 50% as some magical cut-off point, but I imagine things start getting wonky around 50%. Are we already there?
-Paul[2018-03-21 15:28:04] - also hopefully nobody is checking out my math. jared kushner is probably not technically younger than any of us here right now. ~a
[2018-03-21 15:26:53] - whoa. just found something fun out. stephen miller, jared kushner, sarah huckabee sanders, and hope hicks. you know an interesting property they all hold? they're all younger than us. we're finally there. we're old. it's official today. the day that both senior advisers to the president, the press secretary, and the white house communications director are all younger than you is the day you're officially super old. ~a
[2018-03-21 15:17:29] - paul: majority? you're implying it starts to become a problem at 50% passive? ~a
[2018-03-21 15:14:06] - a: Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply I necessarily thought it was a problem (and you're totally right that options and shorting can help "fix" any problem it might be in a hurry). Also, I think we all agree it doesn't even become close to a problem for awhile. I just sometimes have trouble envisioning how the market would work in a majority passive investing scenario. -Paul
[2018-03-21 14:54:17] - paul: yes, you raise a good point. there are too many variables, i think and we'd need to simulate it to know for sure what the cutoff is: when exactly this becomes a problem. what's more, passive investors want to avoid this situation you describe as much as anybody, so they probably have their own analysis of this problem. short-selling can also "help" avoid these bad situations of passive money becoming inefficient. ~a
[2018-03-21 14:53:25] - Yeah it didn't seem like it was rising to as big a deal on a national level. It was a fairly big deal here. Just curious if it had penetrated, partly with Trump is that everything else in the news has a hard time getting space. -Daniel
[2018-03-21 14:40:28] - Daniel: Seriously, I saw it and had the thought, "If this was happening on an east coast city, it would be MUCH bigger news". -Paul
[2018-03-21 14:39:59] - Daniel: It made the news, but it wasn't happening in New York, so it wasn't dominating the news 24/7.
-Paul[2018-03-21 14:39:24] - a: But if there is still new money coming in on the passive investing side, wouldn't the 99% passive investing still be buying Sears at a higher rate than the 1% selling? I understand if the money is constant it works out okay, but the thing is there is new money coming in. -Paul
[2018-03-21 14:30:57] - daniel: i don't read much of the news. i saw on /r/news them talking about whether he was a "terrorist" or not. he's white, so obviously not a terrorist. but also . . . you know . . . he didn't have political aims, so maybe he's really not a terrorist. ~a
[2018-03-21 13:58:47] - How much did the Austin bombings make the news up there for you guys? -Daniel
[2018-03-21 13:20:34] - i could be wrong on some of the details, but i honestly think it won't be a problem even at like 80% passive. ~a
[2018-03-21 13:18:13] - paul: even if passive investors are 99% of the market, you could argue that the passive investors will always just duplicate whatever the remaining active investors do. one market buy order turns into 100 market buy orders. one limit sell order turns into 100 limit sell orders. ~a
[2018-03-21 13:09:01] - paul: even if passive investors are 99% and more active investors want to sell a share of sears at the bid price than buy a share of sears at the ask price, the price will still fall. ~a
[2018-03-21 12:55:21] - a: But if passive index funds start to get to like 80% of investors... then that would be enough for Sears to keep being listed based on the strength of their buying alone, right? -Paul
[2018-03-20 17:00:09] - aaron: yes, agreed. the second dude did talk about driving down 81 . . . lynchburg and blacksburg and christianburg, etc (he was an african american). ~a
[2018-03-20 16:58:18] - paul: if few active investors wants to own sears, it will eventually get de-listed from the S&P500 and sold (gradually) from passive funds as it price falls. if it happens too quickly, i think the problem isn't that you won't have a seller, it's that you won't have a buyer. in the absurd case of literally no buyers, there is no bid price, no trades, no volume, and therefore no change in the "last" price.
~a[2018-03-20 16:56:34] - a: oh! i think he had a bit about driving through lynchburg? or was that someone else... - aaron
[2018-03-20 16:48:32] - i also don't remember anything about george bush. so i guess maybe i don't remember it as well as i thought
~a[2018-03-20 16:48:11] - that part i don't remember. ~a
[2018-03-20 16:47:26] - was lewis black the comedian we saw who had some joke about a guy driving a pickup truck, and a gun inadvertently going off, or something? ...it's really fuzzy but i thought i remembered a joke like that - aaron
[2018-03-20 16:35:27] - a: I just seem to recall him being offended by too many things that I thought was funny.
-Paul[2018-03-20 16:34:56] - a: "pierce said that he thought lewis black's set wasn't that funny and i definitely disagreed." I was just referring to that. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:33:38] - paul: context? you don't think he has a good sense of humor? i assume he likes family guy, and futurama, and southpark, and the colbert report (rip), and the daily show (rip on hulu), and last week tonight, and the office, and seinfeld, and etc etc etc. no, i don't think i agree.
~a[2018-03-20 16:30:34] - a: Can we agree Pierce doesn't have a good sense of humor?
-Paul[2018-03-20 16:28:16] - aaron: 3. the first opener was pretty funny (some chick talking about her metaphorical penis). and the second opener even more so (some dude). ~a
[2018-03-20 16:28:04] - Daniel: Like, I try to think of who the sellers are in an environment where no active investors wants to own... let's say Sears, but passive index funds hold it because it's in the S&P (is it? I don't even know). How does that work? -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:27:12] - Daniel: Could be. I could see it going either way. The more I think of what happens when we reach high levels of passive investing, the more my head hurts... -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:27:09] - aaron: "righteous tirade" haha, it's weird seeing someone refer to lewis black in that way. that's his shtick. he is nothing but righteous tirade. that's why we find him funny. anyways, aaron, i remember that show really well. 0. we were sitting too far back, and that part was lame. 1. he fucked up a joke and had to walk it back. 2. pierce said that he thought lewis black's set wasn't that funny and i definitely disagreed. ~a
[2018-03-20 16:26:02] - Maybe dumb investors is harsh. Less casual active investors. -Daniel
[2018-03-20 16:25:37] - Paul: An interesting point I just read was that as passive money increases it means potentially less dumb investors to make bad trades so might make it harder for active traders to find "good deals". -Daniel
[2018-03-20 16:24:22] - Daniel: But I do think that for some people who have the interest and motivation to do some research, that they can beat index funds. Maybe the big question is if it is luck or not. I mean, buying Netflix in 2002 (or whatever) pretty much erases like dozens of mistakes. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:22:51] - Daniel: I don't entirely disagree with you about individual stock picking. I think a lot of people (maybe even most) would be best served with low cost index funds that they add to consistently over time. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:22:05] - Daniel: Funny that you mention that. One of David Gardner's (Motley Fool co-founder) things that he looks for in stocks is a consensus from people that it is "overpriced". He finds that to (counter-intuitively) be a buy signal. Throughout it's history, Amazon has also seemed to be overpriced. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:14:54] - Also one of the articles I read (written in 2016) had a rant about how Netflix is an example of stock to avoid as its overpriced. -Daniel
[2018-03-20 16:13:59] - Paul: I would agree that its totally possible for an individual to beat the market. But I'm skeptical of someone claiming ahead of time they can. I'm looking around and basically all the things advocating for individual stock buying basically boil down to do a good job picking! -Daniel
[2018-03-20 16:12:21] - Wow, I think it might be. God bless NFLX (up like 60% YTD) and AMZN (up around 30% YTD), my two biggest individual holdings. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:10:03] - I don't want to jinx anything, but I like my chances. My Vanguard account looks to only be up 1-2% whereas my Roth IRA looks like it might be up close to... 20%!? Is that possible? That can't be right, hold on. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:08:08] - Daniel: Speaking of which, it's almost time for a quarterly update. Wonder if I can finally overtake my Vanguard performance.
-Paul[2018-03-20 16:07:47] - https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/85ryc5/hannibal_buress_mic_cut_after_jokes_about_priests/dvzu8j9/ random reddit comment i saw today where someone was talking about the 2002 lewis black show we all went to in burruss. small world! - aaron
[2018-03-20 16:07:17] - Daniel: Yeah, I agree, which is why I am trying to document my own personal performance. I figure at the very least I can "prove" whether or not I can beat the market.
-Paul[2018-03-20 16:06:39] - Daniel: I think I agree, but does active management get easier or more effective as passive money becomes more or less prevalent? Or is it more of a sudden switch with a tipping point? (For the record, I have no idea, I'm just wondering out loud). -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:05:54] - It would be interesting to find / read a study that compared individual investors over time to index funds but its probably hard to categorize individual investors as the nature of them is to be individual. -Daniel
[2018-03-20 16:04:59] - Paul: I think as long as there is enough actively managed money in the market that the efficient market hypothesis holds I don't think more passive money changes things. Once the amount of passive money disrupts an efficient market then actively managed would be superior. -Daniel
[2018-03-20 16:03:29] - Goodness, there's a lot of typos there. I blame being under the weather. Hopefully it made sense, though. The market can never really be 100% passive, and as we get closer to 100%, I think that changes the calculus for individual investors. -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:02:14] - Also, another thought I had recently (that I think we've discussed here before) is how the increase in popularity will change active management in the future. As more and more money because "passive" in that it goes into prescribed indices, wouldn't that affect people's ability to outperform? -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:00:35] - Daniel: I should probably say, "it's clear some individuals can beat the market" -Paul
[2018-03-20 16:00:13] - Daniel: I saw that article independently and almost brought it over because I knew it would be fodder. What I found interesting was what the article didn't cover, but what we have. The change of makeup in the index relative to the funds. Even the "market" is actually something of a fund. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-20 16:00:02] - Daniel: I'm not even necessarily asserting anything. I'm just curious what the numbers look like. I mean, it's clear individuals CAN beat the market (Peter Lynch, Warren Buffet, etc), the question is more if it is 1% of individuals or 50% or 90% or what. -Paul
[2018-03-20 15:41:32] - Paul: Your contention is that the extra overhead that a fund has to deal with (its rules / regulations / dealing with investors withdrawing) is what causes some to under perform and that individual investors who don't have to deal with those will be better. But you aren't asserting how much better right? Just some level of better? -Daniel
[2018-03-20 15:37:13] - Daniel: I suspect it's more preaching to the choir than not being able to sway anybody. I do really wonder, though, if there have been studies on individuals (not actively managed funds) versus the market. All the studies I have seen focus on funds (and the fees and handicaps involved with them). -Paul
[2018-03-20 15:21:40] - I don't really expect to totally sway anyone, and on some level might just be preaching to the choir but https://www.aei.org/publication/more-evidence-that-its-very-hard-to-beat-the-market-over-time-95-of-financial-professionals-cant-do-it/ -Daniel
[2018-03-20 12:40:51] - a: Thanks! 240% gain for my real portfolio (up 217% versus the S&P). Super big winner over the past year or so. -Paul
[2018-03-20 12:34:45] - as of now, your shopify ownership has doubled in the 2017 challenge. congratulations. ~a
[2018-03-20 12:33:28] - yep. ~a
[2018-03-20 12:31:27] - a: Well, yesterday was bad for lots of people. I don't know why twitter is down. Can't find any news indicating why, except maybe people assume that the government will come after them next. Still beating Daniel in both contests, though.
-Paul[2018-03-20 12:25:38] - jesus this has been a bad week in paul land. two days in a row of sadness. ~a
[2018-03-20 12:24:40] - paul: yeah, especially since facebook's data collection issues don't apply to twitter? they don't, right? is there other twitter news? maybe this is a buy signal: people are selling for an invalid reason? ~a
[2018-03-20 12:19:56] - Stupid Facebook problems bringing twitter down with it... -Paul
[2018-03-19 15:21:30] - "ants with stilts, what the fuck science?" ha. ~a
[2018-03-18 20:50:17] - a: Precisely. That's why I'm not surprised that the lawyers didn't ask me about it. But there are cases where it does come up. Like that one that mig linked earlier, I can see that being a question that would've been in the questionnaire. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-18 14:53:49] - xpovos/mig: isn't asking about jury nullification playing with fire? i feel like you could be shooting yourself in the foot. you're asking them about something where they probably don't even know if it exists? (i.e. "don't put beans in your nose"?). ~a
[2018-03-17 00:51:53] - mig: re: your article, I find it somewhat ironic that he was found guilty at a jury trial. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 16:49:38] - a: I get the sense that a prosecutor is going to object on any answer that is not a definitive "no". - mig
[2018-03-16 16:44:39] - mig: "saying you are even slightly in favor of it" does saying some non-answer (i'd consider the facts of the case) count as being slightly in favor of it? ~a
[2018-03-16 16:33:29] - and boy do they get super pissed about it. - mig
[2018-03-16 16:27:42] - xpovos: it might seem that way, but for the most part jury nullification more visibly usurps prosecutors and judges. - mig
[2018-03-16 16:17:50] - mig: I don't get why the judicial system would hate it, though. It's the legislative that should hate it. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 16:15:17] - a: most of the judicial system really, really, really hates jury nullification and saying you are even slightly in favor of it is a good way to get booted off as a potential juror. -mig
[2018-03-16 16:12:39] - It's all about that small sample size.
[2018-03-16 16:12:34] - a: Generally, my treatment by the staff of the court and the lawyers. The fact that I was struck is not surprising, I guess, but it does also get to my point. If I am the juror struck (100% of the time, small sample size) then how is a jury going to be of peers? -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 16:11:19] - a: The question is basically going to be presented by the prosecution's lawyer, if at all. If a juror believes in jury nullification in any circumstances, he'd move to strike. I do believe in jury nullification in many circumstances, if not all. It rarely gets asked, though, from my understanding. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 15:21:25] - xpovos: second question! on nullification . . . "i was prepared, though" what was going to be your answer? i'd probably spout some "i'd consider the specifics of the case" bullshit. they shouldn't be trying to kick me out based on nullification. ~a
[2018-03-16 15:16:45] - xpovos: my third jury duty comes up next month (last two times were 2007 and 2014). this will be my first time in arlington. i still have yet to make it *to* voir dire! what makes you think they didn't want you on the jury? ~a
[2018-03-16 13:12:15] - Paul: Spot on. It have been accused of being elitist, and episodes like that are why. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 13:11:59] - mig: No, it was not asked by the lawyers, and I didn't volunteer. I was prepared, though. -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 10:49:45] -
~a[2018-03-16 10:38:38] - surreal joke on life savers bag - aaron
[2018-03-16 10:13:43] - xpovos: did the topic of jury nullification come up? - mig
[2018-03-16 10:10:37] - Xpovos: "how am I to be expected to have a jury of my peers?" I'm sorry, but combined with the previous statement, I can't help but read that like a supervillain complaining that everybody is beneath him. -Paul
[2018-03-16 10:01:09] - So, the one thing I tookaway from my experience of being selected for jury duty, but not for a jury, is that the lawyers (both of them) wanted nothing to do with having someone like me on the jury. The problem is, then, if I am to go on trial, how am I to be expected to have a jury of my peers? -- Xpovos
[2018-03-16 09:06:06] - a: Yeah those are good questions. Maybe if there was better transparency on that split I would be more understanding of corporate decisions but as is I generally feel like employees end up getting the short end of the stick a lot. -Daniel
[2018-03-15 16:01:25] - daniel: yeah . . . it is and it isn't. i threw in the "assuming corporate profits are a constant", but that's a simplification as well. i don't have a clear picture of how (in aggregate) corporate profits are decided. worded differently, how do corporate budget makers and boards decide how much money will go to raises and how much money will go to the shareholders? what's the equation? moreover, how are ceo salaries decided? ~a
[2018-03-15 14:36:28] - a: I guess thats true and makes sense. I think of the PTO from a corporation as being a cost to 'them' as opposed to employees but I guess its not quite that simple. -Daniel
prev <-> next