prev <-> next
[2018-06-12 09:44:45] - a: First place is mine! Go Twitter! -Paul
[2018-06-11 14:47:56] - It's been a while, and/or I'm hungry. I just tried to go to edit a script and instead of .php I typed .pho. -- Xpovos
[2018-06-11 12:48:23] - I'm confused, are the length of company names supposed to be equal to the lengths of our actual names? -Paul
[2018-06-11 12:39:49] - Might I suggest that I am U.S. Steel? -- Xpovos
[2018-06-11 11:14:03] - I'm not sure what the take away from me being disney is. That I'm a giant mega corporation responsible for some cool marvel movies but also for ruining star wars? Or that my performance in life has been good but substandard over the last few months? -Daniel
[2018-06-11 11:04:47] - mig = meli seemed to fit better, but seemed a bit stereotypical
[2018-06-11 10:57:11] - gurkie = google, daniel = disney, adrian/andrew/aaron = amazon, paul = pull request of github.com -> microsoft.com, mig = mmm
[2018-06-09 17:34:09] - Xpovos: Yeah, I guess I'm happy that Google and Disney have been mostly treading water, although I was hoping for more. Celgene has been my big disappointment. So hard to judge pharma and biotech companies sometimes. -Paul
[2018-06-09 11:38:03] - I picked MMM because I wanted a reliable dividend-paying blue chip that should not underperform the market too much. If it would just break even, I'd be in really good shape. -- Xpovos
[2018-06-09 08:28:28] - paul: yeah, i could see that. large amount of biking could have an effect (positive or negative effect) on a lot of things relating to genetics. sperm count, impotence, sex drive, sexual attraction, etc. ~a
[2018-06-09 06:20:40] - a: 23andMe just asked me, in the interests of genetic research: "The first time you conceived a child, how many miles were you biking during a typical week?"
-Paul[2018-06-08 13:57:32] - a: Priceless means they have no price, therefore worthless.
-Paul[2018-06-08 13:50:13] - Paul:. Are you accounting for the bragging rights? Bragging rights are priceless. ~a
[2018-06-08 13:47:53] - a: The funny thing to me is that in both challenges so far, at least one of your stocks is one of the larger holdings in my portfolio, so it's almost win/win for me. I benefited a lot more from AMZN, NFLX and BTC going up than I lost to you in the bet. -Paul
[2018-06-08 13:30:10] - You're right this challenge is much much closer. Thank god this one is only for $20
~a[2018-06-08 12:41:56] - iQiyi (ticker IQ) has almost doubled in one month. Yowza. -Paul
[2018-06-08 11:45:42] - Things are really tightening up between a, Xpovos, and I. All within a few percentage points of each other. What's up with Canadian marijuana stocks today? Spooked by Trump saying he supports US legalization? -Paul
[2018-06-07 09:30:35] - actually we're pretty old, daniel.
if people typically work as adults 18-59, we're over half way. i'm perfectly happy learning a new trade, though. i'd be happy learning a new trade at any age, but i think i'm more flexible than most. i love learning new topics relating to engineering. "You tired of IT in general or just the programming part?" i'm not sure. i still love IT so probably the latter. ~a[2018-06-06 16:05:07] - a: If you find yourself liking it less you are certainly young enough to figure out a new thing to do? You tired of IT in general or just the programming part? Could you make yourself more of an architecht and leave the actual programming to a new junior hire? Move into like system admin or some other specialized role? -Daniel
[2018-06-06 14:49:56] - mig/daniel: yeah that's definitely not my problem. my current project (and even my last project) are very low on bureaucracy and red-tape. even with zero bureaucracy and red-tape i'd still have a "problem". ~a
[2018-06-06 13:49:02] - a: I'm probably more burnt out on having to deal with government customers than anything else. -mig
[2018-06-06 13:47:57] - a: I don't think I'm burnt out on programming. I really enjoyed my random side project with my cousin where I was scraping data and making a report out of it. It was more fun. Programming at work is less exciting now because gov is slow and so much beauracracy. Like I get that big projects need process but when you spend most of your time doing process or supporting test env #4 configuration its not super exciting. -Daniel
[2018-06-06 13:05:29] - aaron/daniel/mig: are you guys burnt out on programming? there was a time 5 or 10 years ago where it was looking like I was becoming a manager of sorts. These days, not so much: I'm programming full time and I'm starting to hate it. Maybe I need to switch projects or something but Im beginning to think it's not the project's fault. ~a
[2018-06-06 11:46:49] - a: Heh, yeah, I was thinking of selling some AMZN at one point but realized that I have so few shares to sell.
-Paul[2018-06-06 11:46:03] - a: Hmmm, I don't know who you are talking about, but this is almost certainly not that person. Maybe you were thinking of Eli? He was my Fool Buddy. -Paul
[2018-06-06 11:07:15] - paul: i just sold *ONE* share of amzn. fucking amzn split already. ~a
[2018-06-06 10:43:11] - paul: i assume david wasn't the one i met a few years ago? the one that was in love with python and was your mentor-buddy when you first started? ~a
[2018-06-05 15:06:27] - a: Speaking of which, if you're interested in Marijuana stocks from Canada, one of the Motley Fool's analysts is going up for a convention. You can follow him on twitter (@David_Kretzmann). -Paul
[2018-06-05 13:31:21] - paul: hadn't checked the market today. i guessed before i looked, though, that you were talking about acbff. acbff is the most volatile of my bunch. ~a
[2018-06-05 13:29:55] - a: I thought I was having a good day with TWTR, but congrats on topping my good day with a better one. -Paul
[2018-06-05 13:05:26] - daniel: nah, i think it's super simple. but i think zacks and investopedia are trying to solve different problems than you are. if there's no rate of return for your pension, and it's literally fixed for the rest of your life, then you only care about inflation. inflation is easy, man! ~a
[2018-06-05 13:04:41] - "rate of return of the pension fund" i guess maybe this is for non-fixed funds? ~a
[2018-06-05 13:03:50] - a: My takeaway from all this is that pensions make this shit way more complicated. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 13:02:18] - i'm not positive, but i think "discount rate" = "inflation". not 100% sure: basically i have no idea why the fuck he doesn't discuss how to get the "discount rate", also he doesn't discuss inflation at all which is fucked, but that's my interpretation. ~a
[2018-06-05 13:00:08] - and i'm basically doing what the zacks link suggested (but actually i'm going one step further adding the geometric serios). ~a
[2018-06-05 12:59:36] - daniel: the zacks link from yesterday is more applicable to your situation: someone doing retirement planning around a fixed pension. ~a
[2018-06-05 12:57:55] - you would only care about the "value" of your pension if you were planning on selling it. or if you were planning on getting a loan and using it as a collateral. ~a
[2018-06-05 12:57:46] - a: But I can't divide by zero... -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:57:26] - a: Its the 'discount rate' but I'm not sure where that comes from. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:57:17] - "what is the interest rate there supposed to represent?" exactly. it's why you don't *care* about the "value" of the pension. ~a
[2018-06-05 12:56:13] - you said (implied) it was a fixed pension: you get 700/month regardless of inflation and regardless of market movements. ~a
[2018-06-05 12:56:09] - a: I think I understand the pension but I'm not sure I understand https://i.investopedia.com/inv/articles/Âsite/mutualfund/101503_14.gif yet. Like what is the interest rate there supposed to represent? Interest rate of what? -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:52:19] - "rate of return that pension fund gets" jesus i don't understand your pension. ~a
[2018-06-05 12:52:02] - daniel: of course that's only looking at the start-date of retirement. if you want to look at the full retirement amount, you do definitely need a geometric series. and the number will be much lower than 400/month (700/month at the end of retirement will feel like pennies). 700/month over retirement in 15 years for 50 years = 170/month: (.7*(1-.96**50)/(1-.96)/50*.96**15) ~a
[2018-06-05 12:51:13] - a: 6% because I thought it was the rate of return that pension fund gets. But that is definitely part of it that I'm confused by. Yesterday you suggested 0 at one point but then you are trying to divide by zero so that doesn't seem right either. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:51:10] - Daniel: It's like if you described somebody's support for free speech to be all about how the government always censors the wrong types of speech. It feels like it is missing the point somewhat. -Paul
[2018-06-05 12:50:34] - Daniel: That's not how I would phrase it, and it feels a little backwards, but I suppose that's close enough. I think you're focusing too much on the effectiveness of government part. To me, it's more about not forcing people to do something they don't want to do. -Paul
[2018-06-05 12:43:28] - daniel: yes, you're doing something very wrong. i think it's probably the idea, not the math. i'm glad you brought numbers: 700/month, you retire in (say) 15 years, and 4%/year inflation, that's 400/month today (.7*1.04**-15). i know i'm not following that link you sent exactly, but part of that has to do with the "interest" rate and what it means. what interest rate did you use and why? ~a
[2018-06-05 12:25:41] - -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:25:39] - Paul: I think mostly those companies would not do those things. You didn't actually answer my questions though so I still want to make sure I understand your position. So you think that if majority of people want to discriminate that the gov isn't an effective means to address that so why bother with it ever trying? And if its only a minority of people that want to discriminate then why do we care?
[2018-06-05 12:23:29] - a: On the pension topic from yesterday I worked through the process but it doesn't feel right to me. So either I'm messing up the math or the idea is wrong. For a low pension of like 700 dollars a month, if you assume you are going to live for 50 years then the present value of it is a lot, when then translates to an almost 3k a month reduction in planned retirement spending but that doesn't seem right for a 700 a month pension. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:22:59] - Daniel: Because culture changes? Let me ask you this: If all discrimination laws were revoked today, do you think Apple is suddenly going to say they won't sell iPhones to hispanics or Chipotle says no burritos to blacks or Amazon will only sell prime memberships to men or United Airlines says any Asians flying their planes will be forcibly removed (okay, bad example)? -Paul
[2018-06-05 12:03:10] - Paul: So you think that if majority of people want to discriminate that the gov isn't an effective means to address that so why bother with it ever trying? And if its only a minority of people that want to discriminate then why do we care? -Daniel
[2018-06-05 12:02:05] - Paul: I'm still confused by your position. I need like a longer form explanation or something. You seem to be implying that gov shouldn't in any way enforce limits on people's ability to discrimiate (freedom to associate) but I think I'm confused how that doesn't open the door to rampant discrimination like the 60's. You seem unmoved because in the actual 60's the gov failed because it reflected a "wrong" majority opinion. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 11:58:06] - a: Wait, why is one ridiculous and the other not? Aren't those pretty much the same thing? Is this a semantics thing? Sorry, I meant, "we need government to force those 40% of people who are against gay marriage to serve them gay wedding cake" or whatever. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:52:09] - paul: "we need government now to force those 40% of people who are against gay marriage to accept it, right?" obviously no, that's not at all what i mean. that's ridiculous. but, if sears wants to have a "whites only" sign in their window, i think the laws they've broken should be enforced. ~a
[2018-06-05 11:51:23] - And it's not all bad, obviously there were government actions that helped. I'm just saying that when society and the culture is "wrong" on an issue, it's going to be reflected both in the free market AND in government, and oftentimes the government is one of the last to change. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:49:56] - Daniel: I mentioned believing that the government shouldn't punish people for choosing who to associate with and Adrian said that doesn't work in the real world and countered with "blacks in the 60s". My only point was that government protection didn't work then either. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:48:47] - Daniel: If there is a broader conclusion, it is this: When the majority is "wrong" (segregation, gay marriage, women voting, etc), I don't think it's reasonable to expect the government to be the great protector of individual rights. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:43:07] - Paul: "life still sucked for blacks in the 60s because a democratic government doesn't help protect people when the majority thinks persecuting those people is okay" - agreed. Is there a broader conclusion past that? I thought you were arguing that therefore the gov shouldn't ever try to do the right thing but maybe I misread / inserted that. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 11:30:18] - a: Oh, I think I understand now. For example, we need government now to force those 40% of people who are against gay marriage to accept it, right? -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:28:59] - Daniel: No, I was refuting Adrian's argument that my belief in freedom of association doesn't work in the real world because life would've sucked for blacks in the 60s. My point was that life still sucked for blacks in the 60s because a democratic government doesn't help protect people when the majority thinks persecuting those people is okay. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:27:46] - paul: your arguments are so black and white. "If the will of the people isn't shit, then what do we need government to protect us from?" so if 51% of the people are awesome to the people around them all of the time, and 49% of the people are shit to the people around them all of the time, you don't think we need government? ~a
[2018-06-05 11:25:18] - Paul: I'm confused now too. You seem to be arguing that the gov in theory can be / could be shitty so it should never try to help. Is that accurate? -Daniel
[2018-06-05 11:22:16] - a: I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If the will of the people isn't shit, then what do we need government to protect us from? -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:21:19] - a: When in reality, we probably would've had gay marriage available earlier (not everywhere, and not by everybody, admittedly) if the government wasn't involved at all. What was one of the last bastions of places to publicly admit gays weren't allowed to work there? The military (government). -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:21:15] - if the government is usually going to be unhelpful, then i argue against having a government. ~a
[2018-06-05 11:20:42] - "So most of the time, the government isn't going to be helpful" this does not follow. the will of the people isn't always shit. you probably assumed it would be to get to the conclusion that the government is usually going to be unhelpful. ~a
[2018-06-05 11:19:21] - a: Right, and you admit it's rare. So most of the time, the government isn't going to be helpful and I argue it's more likely to make things worse than help. The government is great at being like: "Nobody likes gay marriage, so we're making it illegal. Wait, 60% are in favor now? Now everybody must accept gay marriage! Aren't you glad we're around? Otherwise you wouldn't have gay marriage." -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:17:45] - aaron: I can understand the thought process. I like to think I'm more virtuous then that, but I'm sure my sympathy does come from pity to a certain extent. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:16:18] - Daniel: I... don't understand how your two statements go together. I agree with your first statement. I am saying I believe in freedom of association, so that groups like the girl scouts can decide they only want females and the NAACP can only accept blacks and temples can only accept Jews. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:05:33] - paul: not always. sometimes government does the right thing in a representative democracy. sometimes politicians do the right thing when the "will of the people" is shit. it's rare, but it does happen. ~a
[2018-06-05 11:04:52] - "ohhh, poor old racist grandma. your 55-year old son starts dating an 18-year-old high schooler, and you're offended about her race above all things?? how the times have changed. i love you, but i'm so much of a better person than you." that's something like how my thought process goes. i'm not proud of it and if i ever run for president i hope this post is deleted by then. ha ha. - aaron
[2018-06-05 11:04:36] - Paul: You seem to be arguing that the gov could be worse in that it could force 100% compliance of something bad. Are you arguing that gov protecting protected classes actually is bad? -Daniel
[2018-06-05 11:03:06] - aaron: I haven't given much thought to my dark world universe. I would assume age would play a role, and location (either outside of US or even just different areas in the US like the south or midwest). Income or education likely plays a role too. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:02:30] - and with that said i am usually tolerant of people who harbor those kinds of dated beliefs, but it's probably not 100% tolerance and more like the type of sympathy you feel when you meet someone with a physical handicap and you think, "that would have been terrible to grow up like that, I feel so sorry for them." i don't think i necessarily get a lot of virtue points for it, i think secretly i'm sort of looking down on them - aaron
[2018-06-05 11:01:38] - a: But in this case, I submit the government is worse. In the free market, maybe 90% of white businesses might refuse service to blacks but 10% might not. Some government laws, though, would force 100% compliance. -Paul
[2018-06-05 11:00:28] - a: I'm not assuming that at all. In fact, I said right below that "the free market would suck for blacks in the 60s". I'm saying that there is no good solution for an environment where the majority of people in a democracy thinks segregation is good. The free market is going to discriminate and the government is going to discriminate. -Paul
[2018-06-05 10:59:18] - paul: regarding the author's "dark world universe" i think it's mostly that the median voting age is around 48. i don't have a lot of people older 48 in my social circles, but i'm pretty sure if i spent some time at my grandmother's assisted care facility or went back to the Washington Bridge Club and asked people what they think about gay marriage i'd find myself outnumbered - aaron
[2018-06-05 10:56:36] - paul: your solution is to take a hands-off approach. i think that works until it doesn't. ~a
[2018-06-05 10:56:00] - paul: you're assuming the "free" market is always free. it often isn't. sure, laws sucked for black people in the past, but the free market sucks for them too in the past and present. the free market is often totally ok with discrimination if it can get away with it. ~a
[2018-06-05 10:47:20] - a: So, yeah, the free market would suck for blacks in the 60s, but the government sucked worse, and relying on the government to solve a problem in the free market when the majority of people are still wrong-headed about things isn't going to work. -Paul
[2018-06-05 10:46:24] - a: "when (in the 60s) black people weren't allowed into like 75% of the stores, they didn't have many options when it came to the pursuit of happiness" You mean back in the 60s when there were government laws enforcing segregation? That's the problem with those arguments. Government is often a lagging indicator of public sentiment. -Paul
[2018-06-05 10:38:45] - Paul: Its an interesting article and certainly something to keep in mind. I would totally believe that I have a greater implicit bias against R's than a racial component. I guess I can try the tests later to see if that is true. I think I would attempt at explaining that as being R is something you choose and your race isn't. -Daniel
[2018-06-05 10:30:19] - daniel: about 5 minutes for each test - aaron
[2018-06-05 10:30:13] - although with the rapid flashing images of "white! bad! black! good! white! bad! black! good" it sort of feels like i'm being programmed a la clockwork orange... - aaron
[2018-06-05 10:30:10] - aaron: How long did it take to go through? -Daniel
[2018-06-05 10:29:21] - and also a slight automatic preference for straight people over gay people (sorry gay people.) that's a really interesting test - aaron
[2018-06-05 10:21:20] - paul: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ it included a link to this implicit association test, which i found interesting. i have an implicit preference for light-skinned people over dark-skinned people. sorry dark-skinned people - aaron
[2018-06-05 09:38:13] - paul: the problem with your scenarios is they work well in the abstract/academic and work absolutely shittily in the real world. when (in the 60s) black people weren't allowed into like 75% of the stores, they didn't have many options when it came to the pursuit of happiness. things have gotten better in the most of the states recently, but things aren't perfect everywhere, and things can and will get worse. ~a
[2018-06-05 07:35:13] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ This is super long, and I've only read about half of it, but I've thought everything I've read so far (especially the stuff near the beginning) was super interesting. -Paul
[2018-06-04 20:35:35] - a: At the same time, it doesn't force uncomfortable edge situations like the Jewish baker making a Nazi cake or forcing bars to end girls night or whatever. -Paul
[2018-06-04 20:34:04] - a: I suspect that in 99.9% of cases, this will mean no change in the current status quo and in those 0.1% of cases, it might mean somebody has to go another 500 ft to shop at another store (or better yet, order what they want online). -Paul
[2018-06-04 20:32:40] - a: So, yeah, If Circuit City said they wanted to serve only blacks or if Montgomery Ward only wanted to serve men, or if the girl scouts only wanted to admit girls, or if Starbucks wanted to refuse service to an outspoken Nazi, I think they should legally be allowed to decide who they work for. -Paul
[2018-06-04 20:30:35] - a: I'm open to changing my mind about this and would be happy for examples otherwise, but I generally think the most consistent way to think of this issue is to be relatively absolute in terms of freedom of association just like freedom of speech. -Paul
[2018-06-04 16:52:03] - At least as the brand "Kinko's" - now they are just FedEx Office. -Daniel
[2018-06-04 16:51:05] - a: What I find funny about your question is that Kinko's doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for awhile
-Daniel[2018-06-04 16:26:49] - paul: should i assume you're fine with any discrimination if it involves speech? if kinkos is like: "we'll be happy to accept new business from men, but we won't photocopy or print any paper that suggests puts men in a positive light" or if comcast/verizon is like "we're blocking the websites askmen.com and maxim.com"? those are fine? ~a
[2018-06-04 16:08:41] - Daniel: If we're talking the principle of the matter, though, then I guess I am happy that the baker isn't going to have to pay a fine. I don't believe people should be required to print messages that they find offensive. -Paul
[2018-06-04 16:07:46] - Daniel: Are you asking about predictions on what the Supreme Court would say? Or our own personal opinions? Either way, I bet the answer is: nobody. As I understand it, it was a pretty narrowly defined ruling which basically skirted the larger issue. -Paul
[2018-06-04 15:54:34] - a: Yup. -Daniel
[2018-06-04 15:51:49] - daniel: yep, that's basically what i was saying. i think. but i added the extra part at the end: subtract that final annual amount from your annual spending and divide the answer by 4% to get your final non-pension goal in today-dollars. ~a
[2018-06-04 15:21:37] - a: https://finance.zacks.com/calculate-net-present-value-future-pension-9929.html This breaks into two parts that make more sense to me. Figuring out the amount of the pension when you actually retire. And then bringing that number back to today's dollars. -Daniel
[2018-06-04 15:09:37] - My understanding after reading was that the baker won because he wasn't not selling to them because they were gay, ie he would sell them a birthday cake if they wanted, but because he didn't want to sell them a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Also because the Colorado board in charge of the initial ruling was apparently open hostile to his religious beliefs so the SC said that was wrong. -Daniel
[2018-06-04 15:08:55] - daniel: once you get the annual pension amount before inflation (it'll be slightly less that the "face" value of your pension), subtract that from your spending. use your new "net spending" amount with the 4% rule. ~a
[2018-06-04 15:07:55] - so, let's try this instead. have it affect your spending. again, it'll only be an approximate simulation because your spending will change with inflation. average your pension amount before inflation (i.e. take your pension amount and integrate it to get "today" dollars. a la geometric series). a geometric series is basically what your annuity equation was doing, but i would call it "inflation" instead of "interest". ~a
[2018-06-04 15:05:44] - Supreme Court ruled in narrow favor of the baker in Colorado that he didn't have the serve a cake for a gay wedding. I don't remember all our previous positions so who gets to claim they were right (as defined by the SC)? -Daniel
[2018-06-04 14:58:43] - yeah good point. i fucked that up. ~a
[2018-06-04 13:48:56] - a: doesn't the 4% rule count on accruing interest as you continue to draw down? So taking a 10k a year annuity and just assuming living for 30 years and then just adding 300k to your retirement savings doesn't seem right to me either. -Daniel
[2018-06-04 13:34:07] - daniel: so i read investopedia some more, and i still think you should use a simple algorithm for this. i think "present value" and "future value" is if you plan on selling this thing, or determining what a "fair market value" of this thing is. not if you're just going to lump it into your retirement planning. ~a
[2018-06-04 13:19:10] - daniel: yeah, using the example in your second link, since you're not re-investing the output of the annuity, i think you'd use a 0% interest rate. when you use 0%, that reverts to my equation (multiply annual amount by number of years) ~a
[2018-06-04 13:17:36] - daniel: interest rate? i thought she had a fixed pension? i'm confused what interest rate you would use. maybe that's the "value" of the annuity, not necessarily the "output" of the annuity? ~a
[2018-06-04 12:59:57] - from https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/calculating-present-and-future-value-of-annuities/
[2018-06-04 12:59:47] - a: https://i.investopedia.com/inv/articles/site/mutualfund/101503_14.gif where c = cash flow per period i = interest rate n = number of payments -Daniel
[2018-06-04 12:57:01] - "it seems getting the present value of an annuity is more complex than that" yeah i believe that. what is the equation to get the present value of an annuity? ~a
[2018-06-04 11:57:18] - a: That was basically my initial thought but after trying to read up some on the subject, it seems getting the present value of an annuity is more complex than that. -Daniel
[2018-06-04 11:37:34] - daniel: the problem where it's not an optimal simulation is you'll be pulling more (percentage wise) from it compared to your other banks of money at the beginning of retirement. and vice-versa at the end of retirement. ~a
[2018-06-04 11:37:09] - daniel: no, definitely not. you use the 4% rule? if so, you could give it a dollar balance (multiply annual amount by number of years), and lump it into the 4% rule. the 4% rule is supposed to account for inflation given a fixed bank, so that should work. ~a
[2018-06-04 11:04:08] - Daniel: No, I've never had a pension and so haven't even thought about how it would fit into my retirement plans. Sorry. -Paul
[2018-06-04 11:03:46] - a: Does Fortnite seem like a game you might enjoy, though? I think it's a shooter... -Paul
[2018-06-04 10:22:31] - how much* you need
[2018-06-04 10:22:11] - a / Paul: Do you guys know a good way to account for a pension that doesn't adjust with inflation when trying to figure out how you need to retire / your retirement spending? -Daniel
[2018-06-04 10:15:12] - I bought shares of IQ twice within 2 months of its IPO and I find myself still wishing I had bought more. -Paul
[2018-06-03 21:10:21] - paul: sure i'll see if i can't install win10 on an external drive. ~a
[2018-06-03 15:42:05] - So, I miss playing games with you guys like Heroes of the Storm or Starcraft 2 or Gears of War or Madden or whatever. I hear Fortnite is all the rage now and is free to play. Anybody play that? Or is anybody interested in Starcraft 2 or something like that? -Paul
[2018-06-03 14:12:24] - a: That sounds like an Xpovos thing to me, although I do think I've argued that minimum wage increases usually lead to greater unemployment or higher cost of goods (or both). -Paul
[2018-06-03 12:04:18] - xpovos/paul: i vaguely remember one of you arguing that an increase in wages (or, say, an increase in the minimum wage) also increases inflation. i found this graph today. it appears that median wages after inflation can change in big ways. it also surprised me that median wages today are higher than they've ever been even after inflation. ~a
[2018-06-03 12:00:39] - paul: i would watch ultimate, but probably not to the level that some people watch nfl, nba, mlb, mls, etc. ~a
[2018-06-03 10:02:22] - https://www.startengine.com/audl I know there's a very good chance that this is just a money grab and/or a very bad investment (lots of professional Ultimate leagues have failed), but I can't help but be intrigued. I've always thought that the concussion problems for the NFL combined with the explosion of streaming video channels and need for content would be perfect for an Ultimate league. -Paul
[2018-06-02 00:14:46] - Paul: Stolen Reddit comment in fewer words: there's a difference between attacking someone for their actions, statements, policies, activities versus attacking someone for their immutable characteristics (i.e., race). -Daniel
[2018-06-02 00:13:05] - Paul: Similar to what I said about roseann vs bee but more words https://www.gq.com/story/nothing-is-the-same-as-racism -Daniel
[2018-06-01 16:49:14] - paul: god damn it. i was just telling my coworkers there needs to be an open protocol on top of git that holds "issues", code/issue "comments" / "discussions", "pull requests" / "merge requests", "releases", (etc) so you can move from github to gitlab or bitbucket (etc) easily. ~a
[2018-06-01 16:29:46] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/microsoft--github-acquisition-talks-resume.html -Paul
[2018-06-01 12:52:48] - Paul: With Google and the payday loans specifically there's also the "who is using our product now but might not in the future unless we take this action." -- Xpovos
[2018-06-01 11:18:07] - paul: i imagine it's the same person who wasn't visiting the beijing olympics because there was a plastic bag on the street and changed their mind afterwards. i think every little bit helps - aaron
[2018-06-01 11:01:18] - paul: always the bridesmaid, never the bride. ~a
[2018-06-01 10:57:34] - aaron: Yup. Could be. Definitely an eternal question whether companies do seemingly good things just out of the goodness of their heart or selfishly to increase their brand. I guess my counter would be, who is the person who WASN'T using google products because they showed payday ads and changed their mind afterwards?
-Paul[2018-06-01 10:49:15] - paul: i think they might ban ads for payday loans to increase their userbase, and to make them seem "less sketchy" to avoid negative publicity. i think there are financial motivators to reject ads like that - aaron
[2018-06-01 10:48:41] - aDaniel: Back to 2nd place in the stock market challenge! Gogo Twitter! -Paul
[2018-06-01 10:48:22] - https://imgur.com/gallery/5RmFPO9 i'm back baby - aaron
[2018-06-01 10:46:02] - aaron: Fair, but I imagine that banning ads for payday loans HAS to be less profitable for them (one less bidder for ad space) so apparently they sometimes pick morals over money. -Paul
[2018-06-01 10:40:22] - aaron: won't they tend to do both though? i think it would be hard to do neither. i think it would be also hard not to do both. ~a
[2018-06-01 10:37:23] - paul: maybe i'm cynical, but i think google is more likely to bias things towards "what they think is profitable" and not "what they think is moral" - aaron
[2018-06-01 09:50:25] - aaron: ah, sorry, ok. i guess my sarcasm-meter is broken. ~a
[2018-06-01 09:47:37] - aaron: They've already made moral judgements in terms of accepting ads for payday loans and... was it bail loans? I believe they alter search results to exclude online pharmacies (or something like that) and they don't allow certain gun videos on YouTube, so they definitely aren't above tipping the scales on things. -Paul
[2018-06-01 09:44:49] - aaron: Considering Google thought that the idea was so harmful that they fired an engineer for expressing it, isn't it also possible that instead of sending you biased results based on your sexist male demographic, maybe they show you biased results based on what they think is right? -Paul
[2018-06-01 09:39:44] - so i think two reasonable conclusions are "a bunch of men in my demographic share this beliefs and google showed me these search results because they think i share them," or maybe "it's true i guess" but i don't know. i'm just a stupid engineer who googles things i don't know - aaron
[2018-06-01 09:37:17] - a: no, i seriously don't think google results are a reliable scientific source and i don't think "google told me" is a good reason to believe anything. and i think it's naive to trust a single company to give you unbiased information about literally everything when they're financially motivated to show you what you want to see - aaron
[2018-06-01 09:36:51] - a: There were two statements? I wasn't necessarily talking about Damore, just more about if it was possible to, in a business setting, talk diplomatically about the idea that women on average might suffer from neuroticism more. In your opinion. -Paul
[2018-06-01 09:01:49] - ok now just dripping in sarcasm?
~a[2018-06-01 08:37:47] - although i'm also disappointed that there are so many different members in the scientific community which transcend political and cultural barriers to conspire against women. i wonder whether it's an indiciation of someone paying them to do so, or just some sort of inherent bias against women - aaron
[2018-06-01 08:35:55] - and while i don't think this means the results are conclusive, i do think it means that maybe google has decided i want to see these kinds of mysogynistic search results, as opposed to unbiased results which would indicate things like, "women, on average, are no more predisposed to neuroticism than men" - aaron
[2018-06-01 08:35:12] - a: https://i.imgur.com/Zg4ipd6.jpg i feel embarrassed because i just googled what i feel was an impartial yes/no question and the top 9 google results cite 7 different articles to reach a similar conclusion (one by Benjamin P. Chapman, Ph.D., another by Yanna J. Weisberg, another by Costa, Terracciano and McCrae, another by Del Giudice, another by J Ornel cited in wikipedia, another by Art Markman, Ph.D, another by Soudeh Rahmani) - aaron
[2018-06-01 08:16:10] - it took me a while to determine what was wrong with this map ~a
[2018-06-01 07:45:21] - aaron: sarcasm? sorry, i thought i was more specific in my previous posts. he said that women, on average, have more neuroticism. ~a
[2018-05-31 22:58:47] - a: my mistake! i didn't know he said other stuff - aaron
[2018-05-31 19:53:02] - aaron: he said a lot of stuff. that was one thing he said. and i even agree with that point. but he also said that other stuff too. stuff that kinda undercut a few of his other points. ~a
[2018-05-31 19:00:00] - I may have misunderstood damore's point but I thought it was basically that because women for whatever reason self-select away from technical fields, that any merit-based hiring approach will not result in a 50-50 gender ratio for those positions - aaron
[2018-05-31 16:38:21] - paul: if someone at my company said that, it would not be grounds for firing. i'd probably fire them for the fun of it though. ~a
[2018-05-31 16:35:39] - which statement? the first or the second? the first one seems diplomatic to me, but i'm pretty sure damore went way past "lets study this some more". ~a
[2018-05-31 16:27:35] - a: I don't know, do you think it is? Would you be okay if somebody at your company said that? Or would that be grounds for firing? -Paul
[2018-05-31 16:17:10] - paul: "in the US, neuroticism is highest in the mid-Atlantic states and southwards and declines westward" clearly google needs to be using this information instead to decide who to hire and promote in their company (/s). ~a
[2018-05-31 16:14:57] - paul: ok, here's my try at making it diplomatic: "the issue of sex differences in neuroticism and the implications for understanding neuroticism's neurobiological basis deserve more detailed and systematic investigation". does that satisfy your diplomatic statement? ~a
[2018-05-31 16:13:25] - a: So at the very least, it doesn't seem to be such a patently absurd idea that can't even be discussed. So my question to you is, if you are one of those scientists who thinks that maybe, just maybe, women on average suffer more from neuroticism, and it might lead to different choices in careers, how does one diplomatically express that? -Paul
[2018-05-31 16:10:36] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Age,_sex_and_geographic_patterns You and Matt Herndon and others have routinely stated that various points are flatly untrue, and based off bad science and everything else and maybe that's true. I don't know. But I do know that everything I read that seems to come from a reliable source seems to indicate otherwise. -Paul
[2018-05-31 16:09:06] - a: I didn't acknowledge that the data was bad or that it was a false statement, I said that even if I did, that seems irrelevant to your point. Something can be diplomatic and false and something can be un-diplomatic and true. -Paul
[2018-05-31 15:59:14] - a: People diplomatically say things that are basically false all the time. Just watch politicians / press secratary / PR spin people. -Daniel
[2018-05-31 15:54:58] - paul: ok you acknowledge the data is bad, and that it's a false statement, and you're asking me how to diplomatically state something false? that seems weird. ok, i'll bite: "it's *not* true that women, on average, are more neurotic". that seems pretty diplomatic imo
the logical side of me wants to take the bait, and find out how to diplomatically word something patently false: but the emotional side of me knows it's folly. ~a[2018-05-31 15:51:33] - daniel: that's a very interesting link! paul: "I can't explain how that works, but I think I've had somebody tell me that before". yeah, sorry, i'd need it explained to me. in the mean time i'll read daniel's link. ~a
[2018-05-31 15:48:03] - Daniel: Although it does seem a little backwards that we're essentially saying: "You can be as mean and hateful to a specific person as you want, just don't be less mean and hateful to a group of people"
-Paul[2018-05-31 15:47:07] - Daniel: That's a good point that I hadn't considered, although weren't Roseanne's comments directed at a specific person and not an entire group of people? I guess, to your point, people are taking her comment directed at one person to imply racism in general. I think there's some truth to that... -Paul
[2018-05-31 15:44:40] - Calling someone a cunt seems not really funny and uncalled for so while not defending that specifically I think a statement like "All hispanics are lazy" could be considered worse than "Miguel is a terrible asshole cunt, fuck that guy!" because one has a broader net if that makes sense. (I don't think either of those statements just to be clear
) -Daniel[2018-05-31 15:42:27] - Paul: Wading in my guess is that people assume Roseanne's comments imply racism which means she would think less of lots of people. Bee's comments might be more pointed / hurtful / hateful but aren't going to be assumed to be generalized past Trump. -Daniel
[2018-05-31 15:25:48] - aaron: I guess I see an incongruence there in my thinking and was wondering if I was the only one. -Paul
[2018-05-31 15:25:06] - aaron: So to me, the more interesting part is whether I personally think either should've been. I don't know what you believe, but I'm fine with Roseanne getting fired by ABC because the backlash from her tweets was likely more than her hit show was worth. At the same time, I feel like in many ways what Samantha Bee said was actually worse... -Paul
[2018-05-31 15:23:37] - aaron: Hmmm, it feels like we're switching between what's legal and what we personally think is acceptable. I think both what Roseanne tweeted and what Samantha Bee said should NOT be illegal and neither should be punished by the government. At the same time, I think both ABC and... Comedy Central? should be well within their rights to fire either. -Paul
[2018-05-31 15:21:35] - a: Re: Neuroticism. Even if I totally granted you that it's bad data or whatever, my point is how do you even discuss the issue diplomatically if using the term itself is apparently considered undiplomatic? -Paul
[2018-05-31 15:20:01] - a: Re: Leverage, I think Daniel is right. The problem is that the vehicles used to get leveraged gains means that you lose out more on pullbacks than you do on gains. I can't explain how that works, but I think I've had somebody tell me that before. -Paul
[2018-05-31 14:50:09] - a: I would also admit that I don't know a ton about leverage and its possibilities so if there is a clever way to do it that works long term that would be interesting to hear / read about. -Daniel
[2018-05-31 14:48:45] - a: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Inverse_and_leveraged_ETFs#Comparison_between_.22daily.22_and_.22long-term.22_results That might be better than what I'm trying to say from my rough memory. -Daniel
[2018-05-31 14:26:58] - daniel: "leveraged losses outsize leveraged gains on the whole" how can that be true about 90% and true about 110%, but not be true about 100%? that seems like a weird coincidence! ~a
[2018-05-31 14:24:21] - paul: i think anything involving speech is going to be inherently subjective and that's not a bad thing. that's why so many humans are involved in the judicial process. if roseanne's tweets had been more diplomatically worded, "valerie jarrett's performance in her role as a political advisor was questionable at best," and she were fired for that, then we'd be having a different conversation and i'd be on the other side of it - aaron
[2018-05-31 14:21:58] - a: I've thought similarly before. I think if I remember correctly its because leveraged losses outsize leveraged gains on the whole? I think? I'd have to go look it back up to be more sure. -Daniel
[2018-05-31 14:02:05] - worded differently, the daniel/mmm/bogleheads strategy is to have 100% in equity (stock market). why 100% and not 90%? why 100% and not 110% (1.1x leverage)? what's so magic about the number 100? ~a
[2018-05-31 14:02:03] - paul/daniel: thought experiment (i don't do this irl): what's wrong with leveraged trading? if i want to follow the s&p500 at 1.1x leverage, won't i make 7% after inflation instead of 6% after inflation? if my time horizon is long (not drawing down, and more than ten years), historically, it would have *always* made more money than not leveraging. it's like everything that's good&bad about the stock market, but 10% more! ~a
[2018-05-31 13:44:32] - paul: well, you wouldn't. because it's not backed up with extraordinary evidence. it's backed up with questionable evidence. what's more it's a questionable conclusion based on that questionable evidence. ~a
[2018-05-31 13:41:33] - a: "women, on average, have more neuroticism" I don't necessarily want to get into this again, but considering that neuroticism is a scientific term (even if it is a loaded one), how else would you say that? -Paul
[2018-05-31 13:40:19] - aaron: I mean, hundreds of years ago, the majority would say that talk of freeing slaves was "worse" than talk about all (white) men being created equal. -Paul
[2018-05-31 13:39:04] - aaron: "but humans aren't robots and most can understand the admittedly subjective difference between the two" I guess that's what I have trouble with, though. Yes, the majority agrees that racist rhetoric is "worse" than affirmative action rhetoric, but I don't know if the government should be grading speech like that. -Paul
[2018-05-31 13:28:01] - aaron: for example "women, on average, have more neuroticism" for example. not diplomatically worded imo. he also sources one very questionable study, and makes this very questionable conclusion based on that study. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. which he didn't include. it's more on the fence, i agree, but still not close enough to the fence imo. ~a
[2018-05-31 13:22:58] - "diplomatically worded e-mail" i'm not sure how diplomatic his wording was. i'm also 90% sure he said some more-controversial statements about female engineers. ~a
[2018-05-31 13:21:39] - beep boop -robot
[2018-05-31 13:03:19] - i think a more defensible scenario is that guy who was fired from google for sending out a very diplomatically worded e-mail which basically said something like, "female engineers are statistically less educated," "these studies show women have stronger emotional responses than men," "differences in salary are matched by performance," and things like that and was fired. and that's a case where i'm much more on the fence - aaron
[2018-05-31 13:00:51] - i understand if it feels icky to admit that some controversial opinions are legally OK and others are less legally OK. and if you tried to explain it to a robot they might say, "beep boop, but what is the difference between a white supremacist espousing racist rhetoric and a minority rights activist espousing affirmative action" but humans aren't robots and most can understand the admittedly subjective difference between the two - aaron
[2018-05-31 12:58:18] - paul: and while i understand you aren't defending roseanne's tweets in particular, i think someone who is just being inflammatory or hateful or making fun of people's appearance -- that's OK if that doesn't fall under protected speech - aaron
[2018-05-31 12:56:11] - paul: i agree it's a fine line and that with that exact phrasing, i'd probably be uncomfortable with it too as the phrasing is unnecessarily aggressive. but, i think the point stands and i think it's OK for that line to exist; it's important that people are legally allowed to be vocal and critical and stand up themselves, that should fall under protected speech. - aaron
[2018-05-31 12:16:44] - mig: But I do get annoyed by the seeming double standard in terms of how much flack Trump (and his family) is getting versus the hysterics over any slight of Obama. -Paul
[2018-05-31 12:15:49] - mig: Yeah, that's a separate but related point. It feels like the point I was making to Matt on Facebook. Liberals might want to realize that a lot of them aren't exactly covering themselves in glory and winning converts by their behavior either. I really dislike Trump as a person, and I don't even think I would support Samantha Bee being fired over this... -Paul
[2018-05-31 12:13:34] - aaron: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ Also, I don't know how serious you were about the fire in a crowded theater analogy, but it's an interesting one that people often get wrong. -Paul
[2018-05-31 12:12:58] - aaron: Hmmm, I don't necessarily think those two positions are equal, but I am uncomfortable with one of those... um... being illegal to fire somebody over and the other being legal to fire somebody over? -Paul
[2018-05-31 12:11:11] - paul: I'm picturing someone trying to convince a Trump supporter to change their mind about Trump, pointing out all the vile and nasty stuff he has said about people, and then that Trump supporter seeing that same person cheer as Samantha Bee as she calls Ivanka Trump a cunt, with the Trump supporter finally responding, "Go fuck yourself." - mig
[2018-05-31 11:12:21] - those two positions are not equal, and those categories of speech should be treated differently - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:12:06] - i think it's OK for the government to draw a line between a feminist complaining that trump should be fired because he hates women, and a mysogynist complaining that melania trump wears hooker makeup and should get back in the kitchen - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:09:20] - paul: you're right, some speech is free-er than others. a more naive person might complain that shouting fire in a movie theater or yelling out medical conditions in social security numbers in the lobby of a hospital is free speech, so hopefully your point isn't simply, "if literally all mouth noises aren't equal then that's not free speech" - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:07:06] - aaron: Okay, do you agree with that legal definition? I didn't quite think of the protected class of people thing, but it kinda feels to me like a double standard that isn't clear why it exists other than some speech is considered more acceptable by the government, which doesn't seem like free speech to me. -Paul
[2018-05-31 11:06:07] - and that's simply because gays and muslims are a protected class and racists and homophobes are not. that line is of course arbitrary and susceptible to change. maybe 50 years from now we will all think how brave rosanne was for sticking her neck out for racists, and how unfortunate it was that racists were not a protected class at the time - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:04:14] - paul: from a legal standpoint, it's the content of the message and whether silencing the message involves attacking a protected class of people. punishing someone making a pro-gay or pro-muslim message is illegal. punishing someone for making a pro-racism or pro-orlando-massacre message is not illegal - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:02:50] - paul: i don't think it's very ironic, i think ABC (and almost all TV networks) have a liberal bias so it shouldn't be surprising or illegal that left-leaning offensive statements are tolerated more than right-leaning offensive statements - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:02:40] - aaron: Hmmm, so to you, it's the content of the message much more than how it's delivered? -Paul
[2018-05-31 11:01:52] - paul: i think it is not unreasonable to imagine a different network (YOU know the one) where a correspondent might say, "trump is a monkey-faced baboon," and then that network would fire that person, and there would be an outcry over it (although perhaps in a different direction) - aaron
[2018-05-31 11:01:38] - aaron: Right, I don't disagree that companies are within their rights to fire people for stuff, and there doesn't have to be consistency or anything. I'm just wondering people's opinions on what should be a fire-able offense. Somebody pointed out the irony of Keith Olbermann (who has gone on many hateful rants against Trump) getting hired right around when Roseanne got fired. -Paul
[2018-05-31 11:00:30] - so if someone says something like, "i like pepsi more than coke" or "hitler was a kind and sensitive man" and they get fired, that's OK but if someone says something like, "women deserve equal wages" or "i've never associated with my biologically male body" and they get fired, that's not OK; or i think it's not OK i forget if transgendered people are protected under US law - aaron
[2018-05-31 10:58:59] - But I think Roseanne's comments were more worthy of being fired? Still, I have a hard time imagining any comedian treating Obama the same way Trump has been treated and not being run out of town. -Paul
[2018-05-31 10:58:45] - paul: i think in general free speech is, employees can say what they want, companies can then retaliate towards the employees (punish/fire them), and the public can retaliate towards the company (admonish/boycott them). and every step along the way is OK as long as the people involved aren't a protected class - aaron
[2018-05-31 10:57:57] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/samantha-bee-ivanka-trump/index.html But I do wonder where racist undertones stand in comparison to stuff like what Samantha Bee did in terms of implying incest (among other things). It's weird, because in some ways I feel like Bee's comments are worse in terms of being intentionally hateful... -Paul
[2018-05-31 10:56:31] - a: i saw that! i couldn't tell if he bounced it and then thought, "oop better stop now," or if he'd planned to stop and then his final slow was sloppy by coincidence. either way, crazy crazy talented - aaron
[2018-05-31 10:56:30] - So, I'm curious about what people here think about free speech and where the line is. Yes, this is prompted a bit by Roseanne's tweets, but I don't really want it to be about that because I don't want it to sound like I'm defending her tweets. She's clearly a little (or lot) crazy and not a nice person. -Paul
[2018-05-31 10:49:37] - aaron: i've practiced with behind the back a bunch with three. front to back and back to front (i'm not ambidextrous, so there's also from each hand. my dominant one and my non-dominant one). i fuck up like 50% of the time. or more! it's really hard because if you bounce into your body you'll probably fuck up. he bounces into his body though at the very end! *his* right shoulder at the very end of the video. very talented dude. ~a
[2018-05-31 10:49:01] - aaron: wow! that's amazing. totally out of my league
~a[2018-05-31 10:31:23] - a: https://i.imgur.com/8UuP3KP.gifv juggling - aaron
[2018-05-30 17:32:43] - daniel: catcoin. $11m market cap. cost for 1 hour 51% attack: $0
~a[2018-05-30 17:24:07] - daniel: oh shit, ok, i made a mistake in my math. regardless he's got the math here. the mistake in my math was i was looking at the wrong charts on the nicehash website! oops! ~a
[2018-05-30 17:20:50] - a: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8mr7lt/i_created_a_website_that_tracks_the_cost_of_a_51/dzr4ssh/ I think thats where someone verifies (or tries to) the math. I haven't checked any of the numbers myself. Was more just amazed at how low vs the market cap some of them were. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 17:19:24] - daniel: agreed. the market cap of some of these other coins constantly blows me away. ~a
[2018-05-30 17:15:13] - 36000 Phash/s * 51% * (0.7700 * 1000 / 24) btc/(Phash/s hour) * 7000 usd/btc = $4m / hour ~a
[2018-05-30 17:14:33] - a: yeah bitcoin wouldn't be a good choice but some of the smaller ones still have multi million market cap and stupid low dollar requirements to 51% them. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 17:09:33] - daniel: i think you're reading it correctly, but i'm coming up with different numbers. they say $600k for 51% for one hour on bitcoin's network. i'm seeing closer to $4m. the nicehash-able = 2% for bitcoin is also pretty limiting. and honestly, it'd be hard to make money on the bitcoin network with only 51% at $4m/hour. ~a
[2018-05-30 17:04:51] - daniel: very insightful concept and website. i've constantly heard people talk about smaller crypto-currencies and how insanely simple they are to 51% attack. ~a
[2018-05-30 16:48:01] - a: Also have you seen this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8mr7lt/i_created_a_website_that_tracks_the_cost_of_a_51/ This is crazy to me if I'm reading it correctly. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 16:47:31] - a: Specifically if I was a very motivated criminal. I don't need it to be easy or allow for all my conveniences of getting a burger at McD's. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 16:30:52] - daniel: online, expedia hotels and cheapair lets you do some cool shit. but it's still pretty awkward if you're used to usd. ~a
[2018-05-30 16:30:28] - daniel: today, it's much better for just internet transactions. in-person it just doesn't work well yet. in austin you can eat in person without hacks in a few places. but it's awkward in person because so few people in a small geographic area use it. online, i used foodler a bunch before they got bought. ~a
[2018-05-30 16:14:27] - daniel: today or ever? those are two completely different debates and i have a bunch of information for both situations, but they're very different arguments. today, it's prohibitively difficult, especially if you don't use "hacks" (like usd debit cards with a balance held in bits, or usd gift cards bought using bits). ~a
[2018-05-30 16:11:26] - a: If you wanted to 100% completely go off USD to BTC (or other crypto) would that be feasible? I was having a debate with Andrea the other day and she didn't think it was feasible and I thought it was feasible just not easy currently. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 16:09:18] - paul: imo $1 in cryptocurrency is worth $1 in real value, because it's probably inflated a shit-ton, but the government can't easily confiscate it. or even account that it exists. ~a
[2018-05-30 16:00:15] - a: And to your point, the government has legit screwed over people in terms of gold and has been diluting people's savings by reducing the purchasing power of the dollar for decades. -Paul
[2018-05-30 15:58:41] - a: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-americans-dow-22000-investing-20170803-story.html And we all know most people don't mind sticking it to "the rich". Don't forget, a lot of Americans either don't have money in the stock market or don't know if they do. -Paul
[2018-05-30 15:57:19] - a: Right. I know it makes me sound like a crazy libertarian, but there really isn't much stopping the government from completely changing the rules that everybody is counting on whenever they want. You can't even count on public blow-back, because they could just make whatever changes apply to accounts of a certain size. -Paul
[2018-05-30 15:32:58] - executive order 26102: "forbidding the hoarding of usd, crypto-currency, metal bullion, and paper certificates within the continental United States" ~a
[2018-05-30 15:30:03] - paul: jesus, i would flip the fuck out if they changed the rules for the 401k/ira. i often wonder what the executive order 6102 of 2030 will be. ~a
[2018-05-30 15:17:52] - Daniel: Fair. I just get frustrated knowing that I can do all the planning in the world, and it could all get screwed up by a bad recession or rampant inflation or a big jump in tax rates. Heck, there's even the whispers of changes to things like 401(k)s every once in awhile. -Paul
[2018-05-30 14:59:12] - Paul: Its very true that lots of things can / will change. A big part for me is that even if imperfect it helps me to better gauge the relationship between money now and time later. Maybe the specifics are wrong but I still think its instructive to see what happens to our theoretical retirement date if I can shave 500 dollars from our budget or 1000. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 14:54:44] - aDaniel: This is why I don't bother with retirement calculators. There's way too many variables that make HUGE differences to where it feels impossible to calculate something 10, 20 or 30 years down the line. Where will tax rates be? What will the average market return be? What about inflation? Health care costs? -Paul
[2018-05-30 14:44:42] - a: That map is recursive. -Daniel
[2018-05-30 14:43:40] - many people don't realize how big brazil really is ~a
[2018-05-30 14:40:58] - daniel: no idea. i'm averaging every situation (no change, exchanges die, universal healthcare). they all average out to, healthcare's overall cost will go up slowly (even inflation adjusted), regardless of how it gets paid for. ~a
[2018-05-30 14:36:35] - a: Are you assuming if the exchanges go away that they are being replaced by universal healthcare of some kind? -Daniel
[2018-05-30 14:33:49] - i was just thinking about that! won't the political fate not really matter? if we get free insurance, we'll be more than paying for that with our tax money. right? ~a
[2018-05-30 14:19:03] - a: I've read to price out individual plans from ACA exchanges but I haven't looked into that yet partly because I know I'm far enough away and because I'm not sure what the political fate of those quite is yet. -Daniel
prev <-> next