prev <-> next
[2018-08-10 16:37:37] - casual game night ~a
[2018-08-10 16:37:33] - 9! that's amazing how it was fine with 9 and 10 was a bridge too far. it was smart to make each change small. ~a
[2018-08-10 13:44:47] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO1jrCodB7Y vaulting box and maru - aaron
[2018-08-10 09:33:34] - oof yesterday it looks like i screwed up the message board and made it impossible to post. hopefully that didn't eat anybodies posts. ~a
[2018-08-08 15:02:06] - lotsa markets won't let you make market orders for that reason: market orders are pretty useless without limit orders. ~a
[2018-08-08 15:01:43] - limit orders. ~a
[2018-08-08 14:45:52] - a: Wait, so a market order can't match up with another market order? I guess that makes some sense, because otherwise how would the price be set? -Paul
[2018-08-08 14:43:35] - paul: that's only how it works. your market order will only ever hit up against a limit order. it's like . . . required. if there is no limit order then your market order will sit and wait. there are huge investment banks that go in as "market makers" and place (constantly moving throughout the day) ridiculously huge limit orders. (maybe you meant that somebody picked 4.20 intentionally though, in which case yeah, i agree) ~a
[2018-08-08 14:16:20] - a: Honestly, I wouldn't at all be surprised if somebody had a limit order for that amount. -Paul
[2018-08-08 14:09:47] - i imagine you and the seller (who also traded at 4.20 per share) high-fiving over the internet. ~a
[2018-08-08 13:11:04] - OMG, I just bought some stock in a company that is tangentially related to marijuana and my market order went through at $4.20 a share. I am not kidding. I didn't even realize it until I was logging the info in my scorecard. -Paul
[2018-08-08 10:59:16] - a: It wouldn't surprise me if the isolation and sense of separation provided by a car cabin plays a role. I think of it similar to how people behave differently when they feel more anonymous on the internet. -Paul
[2018-08-08 10:56:47] - paul: i've noticed that too. i don't think it applies to bikes or mopeds or motorcycles or pedestrians (as much?) though. i think it has something to do with the cabin? i wonder if their have been any studies of road rage and the mode of transport. ~a
[2018-08-08 10:51:22] - One more reason why we need self-driving cars. Speaking of which, I can't believe we didn't talk about Musk's comments about taking Tesla private (and how it's possibly a marijuana joke as well). Funding secured. -Paul
[2018-08-08 10:50:30] - It's been my experience that many people seem to oddly get more aggressive and less sympathetic when they get behind the wheel of a car. I've had a few experiences riding with people who I thought were normal, polite, non-aggressive people where I was surprised by their actions (motioning at and yelling at other drivers) when riding in a car with them. -Paul
[2018-08-08 10:48:55] - judging by his argument style, i can probably guess he wasn't the kind of guy who ever makes mistakes. ~a
[2018-08-08 10:47:55] - xpovos: or just "sorry my bad"? ~a
[2018-08-08 10:47:19] - xpovos:
yah. "I didn't see your hand, please try to be more obvious with your signals," the problem here is he definitely saw my hand (or should have?). i.e. he almost drove into my hand. maybe if he had lead with something closer to "i didn't realize that i was supposed to yield to a biker trying to change lanes" i would have backed down right away. ~a[2018-08-08 10:44:41] - paul: not stupid at all, i'm so glad you asked!
a bike lane is an example of a bike facility. and 99% of the way people misuse them is to park in them. 0.9% of the misuse is driving in them. ~a[2018-08-08 10:43:28] - Paul: I hope not, because that was my follow up to my semi-anecdote.
[2018-08-08 10:43:12] - a: Trailblaizers often have it rough.I think the point in the conversation where it went off the rails was him escalating from "I didn't see your hand, please try to be more obvious with your signals," to what he actually said. I get the joy of dealing with angry people on the phone on a regular basis (yesterday was fun, e.g., but that's a different story) so I've learned as a method of self defence to find these kinds of patterns. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-08 10:40:17] - a: Is it a stupid question to ask what a bike facility is and how people misuse them? -Paul
[2018-08-08 10:29:27] - paul/mig: ok, so one major difference between cars and bikes here: people tend to misuse bike facilities and i spend a lot of time in bike facilities. i've recently decided to stop rolling over every time i see someone misusing the bike facilities. i've decided to tell them that they're not allowed to do what they're doing. anyways this has increased the frequency of these encounters. this is the first time i was threatened though. ~a
[2018-08-08 10:09:43] - a: Unless you were being particularly goading, he probably wasn't going to do anything. As much as people get frustrated and angry with each other on the road here, it seems like instances of it escalating it to a more personal confrontation seem pretty rare. - mig
[2018-08-08 09:58:59] - aaron: yeah, people are awesome
~a[2018-08-08 09:58:05] - paul: of course i agree. i'm a driver of nova's roads too and people have flicked me off for basically doing nothing. still . . . it was an interesting incident, no? i effectively (intentionally or not) goaded him on. i didn't have a cabin to protect me. i'm not 100% sure what i would have done if he had gotten out of his car. maybe asked nicely for someone to call the cops? i'm not sure i had thought that far ahead. ~a
[2018-08-08 09:53:52] - a: eesh! people - aaron
[2018-08-08 07:36:16] - a: I'm not sure running into jerk drivers is unique to cyclists. I've had a few odd encounters with drivers where I couldn't think of what I possibly did to piss them off, but they would obviously be mad at me and flick me off as they drove by (including one person who almost hit me at a four-way stop and definitely went when it wasn't their turn). -Paul
[2018-08-07 23:06:04] - xpovos: i look around at the five other drivers watching this play out and i *actually* said this. "there are like eight people watching, what are you going to do?" him: "there are a lot of people watching now, i don't know if there will be a lot of people watching in a minute" me: "ok" him: "you need to watch your fucking mouth" me: "no" light turns green. wtf.
~a[2018-08-07 23:05:54] - xpovos: so i had an interesting biking incident too, on my way home from work just now. a driver didn't yield to me changing lanes. at the red light, i say: "i had my hand out" him (lying): "i didn't see your fucking hand" me: "you should be more careful" him: "you need to be more careful, you should watch who you're talking to" ~a
[2018-08-07 20:24:47] - a: I don't know why that crosswalk thing is so persistent. I think you and I have even talked about this before. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-07 17:40:20] - xpovos: i've been making a list of biking laws that most people don't know about: you're allowed on sidewalks, cars can cross double yellow line to pass a bicycle (va. dc=?), you're allowed to use crosswalks and you don't have to dismount, you're allowed to lane-split/filter (dc. va=?), dooring is illegal, you are allowed to go on red if the pedestrian sign is green (dc. va=?), right hand hook is illegal, 3-foot passing, etc. ~a
[2018-08-07 17:21:24] - xpovos: "IIRC there's a requirement to walk bikes across crosswalks when on mixed use paths" no, this part is wrong. (va 46.2-904) there is no requirement to walk bikes across crosswalks in virginia (arlington county might have a specific rule i don't know about). dc has no requirement to walk across crosswalks either (dc 50-2201.28). in both states, we are required to give-way to pedestrians. ~a
[2018-08-07 17:19:48] - xpovos: yes, i know the intersection. i also probably know the weird-merge you're talking about. anyways, i've been on that bike path a bunch. it sucks. i've also done exactly what you're describing: i've noticed a driver that's not paying attention to me and won't make eye contact with me. so i have two options: 1. roll the fucking dice. 2. go behind the car. (ok 3rd option is make noise or tap on the hood, but this one sucks). ~a
[2018-08-07 16:39:50] - And worse, I think if there had been a collision, it would've been blamed on the biker, because IIRC there's a requirement to walk bikes across crosswalks when on mixed use paths, which is a rule I rarely see executed by bikers. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-07 16:38:54] - ... after making eye contact with the driver behind us. The other passenger and I each called "bike" to try to alert our driver, but it didn't help. He easily could have hit the biker if the biker had not been on it himself. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-07 16:38:14] - a: I had an interesting biking incident yesterday. In the carpool, one of the others is driving. We come to a very tough intersection (50 and Washington Blvd. if you know it) which requires the driver to look about 160 degrees to the left to check for a safe merge. There's a biker on the mixed-use sidewalk coming from the right. Our driver did not notice him. Fortunately the biker realized eye contact had not been made and went behind
[2018-08-07 14:59:36] - simulating traffic jams. very cool animated graphs of traffic jams in differing scenarios. especially important info imo was that changing the following distance had a much greater effect on traffic flow than lambda (how aggressively you break and speed-up). ~a
[2018-08-07 09:32:14] - a: I suppose. But that doesn't change the fact that you still have to play that team at some point. And if you're that bad, are your chances of beating another team any better? -Paul
[2018-08-06 16:27:07] - mig: ok, granted. paul: "As a player, I would think I would want to be able to get revenge if I just lost to a team." you're assuming that said revenge is even possible or probable. sometimes they weren't just lucky (or unlucky). they're just better (or worse) than you and playing another game won't change that. ~a
[2018-08-06 16:09:51] - a: As a player, I would think I would want to be able to get revenge if I just lost to a team. The big problem is the starting pitcher. They don't pitch back to back games. In fact, teams usually use 4-5 different ones on a rotation. So it would suck if you played a team 10 times and faced their ace each time by random luck of the schedule. -Paul
[2018-08-06 15:49:53] - starcraft games averages are pretty short though, like maybe max 30 minutes. - mig
[2018-08-06 15:45:32] - a: most major starcraft tournaments matche are best of 3/5/7. - mig
[2018-08-06 15:09:30] - as a player, or even a fan, i'd be pissed. not traveling is nice, but the monotony of the same fucking game three times in a row seems problematic. it's like playing starcraft against an opponent (or team) you just played. fuck that
~a[2018-08-06 14:37:35] - a: Playing a team 3 (or more) games in a row is common in baseball. It's how they usually do it. I suspect it has to do with playing almost every day and not wanting to have to travel so many times. Also because of pitching staffs. -Paul
[2018-08-06 14:04:37] - braves vs nats tomorrow, wednesday, and thursday? like three fucking games? god imagine what it would be like to be on the losing side of that match-up for all three games. even if you were on the winning side of that though, i'd hate it too, because on the third game, you'd be like "why". anyways, i noticed an ad because it's the same teams that just played recently. ~a
[2018-08-02 12:19:21] - a: Yup. Just goes to show how lazy I am. Can't even be bothered to look up. -Paul
[2018-08-02 11:52:20] - a: Yeah I see dates. -Daniel
[2018-08-02 11:45:23] - "Does this one go until December 31st". Yep. Dates are in the top row, right? ~a
[2018-08-02 11:42:44] - a: Heh, I didn't spend THAT long thinking about it. Appropriate word, though, considering Mazor is in the healthcare space. -Paul
[2018-08-02 11:39:39] - paul: mazor metastasizes. ~a
[2018-08-02 11:26:37] - (and yes, I did spend more than a few seconds thinking of an alliterative descriptions of something going down for Mazor). -Paul
[2018-08-02 11:16:00] - a: Been a rough couple of weeks for my 2018 portfolio. First Twitter tumbles and now Mazor is getting hit. Does this one go until December 31st? If so, that should be enough time for Twitter to rebound... I hope. -Paul
[2018-08-02 10:12:55] - daniel: i won't rule out the possibility for negative expense-ratio (since some companies make money on shorters with our share-balance and interest on our cash-balance and advertising). but there are other ways to beat free. provide a superior product!
~a[2018-08-02 09:37:28] - Paul: I'm all about lower fees. I'm with Adrian that I don't know if it will make me switch yet but it puts it more on the table I suppose. Hopefully it forces Vanguard even lower? I wonder if they switch at some point to paying us to use their funds? Currently seems unlikely but kinda the only way to beat free. -Daniel
[2018-08-01 14:55:25] - paul: right. you could potentially have infinity percent of the market's change. if the market is unchanged. which is why i mostly ignore that shit. it's a meaningless metric regardless. ~a
[2018-08-01 14:45:27] - a: I don't know if it's that simple, though. Oftentimes when I hear about these stats, they talk about "companies X, Y and Z together accounted for 120% of the market's gains". How could it be over 100%? Because those "gains" have to counter-act the losses from other companies. -Paul
[2018-08-01 14:15:09] - paul: so . . . here's the deal. the YTD gains of the market are ~1%
so having a huge percentage of the gains are trivial. worded differently, removing nflx from the market's gains, won't change the market's gains even if nflx had a huge percent of the gains. yes, i figured it out! ~a[2018-08-01 14:13:19] - i'm fine disagreeing with the lame-stream media, paul. ~a
[2018-08-01 14:10:06] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/amazon-netflix-and-microsoft-hold-most-of-the-markets-gain-in-2018.html I don't claim to understand the specifics of how they count it, but CNBC disagrees.
-Paul[2018-08-01 14:05:53] - paul: removing nflx from the "market's" returns won't change anything (i.e. negligible change). market cap of nflx is 147b and market cap of russel3000 is about 31t. if nflx doubled, that didn't change the market by near 1%. if nflx quadrupled, still less than 1%. ~a
[2018-08-01 13:56:01] - a: At the same time, it would only be fair to remove NFLX from the "market's" returns as well, to make it a fair comparison... -Paul
[2018-08-01 13:55:36] - a: Which is why I don't take my good returns too seriously yet. I've had two of the biggest winners (AMZN and NFLX) over the past year or two, and I'm not afraid to say there's some luck in that. If I didn't have NFLX, I wonder what my returns would look like. Almost certainly not as good. -Paul
[2018-08-01 13:53:18] - Xpovos: It would seem that way, except even with their massive drop, it just brings them back to where they were in April of this year. They've had such a big run up before. Same thing with Twitter. They got slammed hard but have still nearly doubled in the past year. -Paul
[2018-08-01 13:39:03] - paul: the three companies fighting for the 1T mark are amzn, goog, and aapl. you own like two of the three
~a[2018-08-01 13:38:01] - paul: yeah, i saw that. i still think the difference between 0%/year and 0.04%/year is pretty minor. until you have $100k in vtsax, that's less than $3/month. fidelity's support would need to be as awesome as vanguard's super awesome support for me to consider switching. i use fidelity for one of my 401k accounts and it is fairly meh. fidelity's website and features aren't as useful. ~a
[2018-08-01 13:36:57] - Paul: Facebook might be in the middle of a buying opportunity these days... -- Xpovos
[2018-08-01 13:11:02] - Daniel: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/fidelity-one-ups-vanguard-first-company-to-offer-no-fee-index-fund.html I guess soon I need to re-evaluate if my Vanguard index funds have the lowest fees... -Paul
[2018-08-01 13:07:39] - a: Apple and Facebook are two big tech companies that I've never owned and keep (kinda) regretting it. Every time I look at them I think, "Well, I was wrong in the past, but they definitely look overvalued now with limited avenues for growth" and every time I'm wrong.
-Paul[2018-08-01 12:32:54] - paul: aapl broke 200 today. very close to the 1t market cap (once the price hits 204, apple will be the first company to hit the one trillion dollar market cap). ~a
[2018-08-01 11:58:31] - no wait, that's correct... if you think of it as something like "moving right 600 times and moving left 400 times" you'd end up 200 spaces away from the center, which is a factor of 2. so yeah it makes sense you'd be off by a factor of 2 if you compare it to a random walk problem - aaron
[2018-08-01 11:57:08] - actually i take it back, that makes no sense - aaron
[2018-08-01 11:56:28] - xpovos: i guess if you compare it to a random walk problem, your answer should be off by a factor of 2 -- in which case your answer was actually remarkably accurate - aaron
[2018-08-01 10:45:55] - I feel like I should've done better with this given how much time I've invested in random walk problems. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-01 10:45:35] - I had a possible refutation for the logic and calculation aaron provided, but when I checked my math, it ended up making no practical difference. A return to the mean seems inevitable. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-01 10:44:40] - Ironically, I think my error came from failure to properly comprehend the size of 1000 coin flips, instead of failing to properly comprehend the size of 7B people. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-01 10:36:17] - aaron: it's weird that the worlfram alpha thing comes close but not exactly to my answer. (1000 choose 600)/21000 gives us one in 21billion not one in 7billion. i wonder what math they use. ~a
[2018-08-01 10:33:34] - daniel: well with n=100000, it's definitely less than 51% ~a
[2018-08-01 10:31:40] - but 7 billion is a big number too. i've never run a computer simulation with 7 billion trials because it would typically take too long. that's why it was hard for me to come up with an intuitive answer; it's a very big number and a very small probability - aaron
[2018-08-01 10:30:57] - yeah my guess was too conservative. i've known from running simulations like the "boy girl" problem that if you do like 1,000,000 trials, even if it's a simulation with crazy variability it's unlikely you'll be more than 300-400 away from the ideal answer. so i thought it would be super unlikely to get more than 550 heads - aaron
[2018-08-01 10:30:52] - a: When does it become less than 51%? -Daniel
[2018-08-01 10:25:55] - daniel: yep. even further. using the wolfram alpha thing, changing it to n=10000, and p=0.5, looks like X >= 5316 gives us about the right answer. ~a
[2018-08-01 10:25:47] - Daniel: My guess is that it drops a lot lower. Of course, my previous guess was way off, so what do I know? -Paul
[2018-08-01 10:20:46] - a: So if you push it out to 10,000 coins does it drop to like 5400? -Daniel
[2018-08-01 10:20:43] - daniel: "I guess its easier to get outliers with fewer?" (using your percent-heads metric) yeah, sort-of. ~a
[2018-08-01 10:10:57] - "the chance of 600 heads is one in 7.3 billion" Wow, I'm a little surprised it's that hard to get 60% heads in 1,000 coin flips. -Paul
[2018-08-01 10:08:55] - daniel: yes, the number of coins matters. if you change it to 100 coins, the answer goes from 600 to 81 (assuming aaron's math is right) ~a
[2018-08-01 10:06:21] - aaron: interesting approach. i knew about the binomial distribution (and used it in my answer sort-of), but i didn't think of trying to find the answer that was *equal to* 7e9. is that . . . correct? ~a
[2018-08-01 10:03:37] - aaron: oh wow, i promise i hadn't seen your answer when you posted that. ~a
[2018-08-01 10:03:35] - I didn't get in before the wolfram answer but I would have thought closer to 70/75% heads. It seems like its just a percent heads problem. Like if you make it 100 coins instead of 1000 does the percent answer change? I guess its easier to get outliers with fewer? So each zero added to the coin count would bring you closer to 50/50. That might make sense. -Daniel
[2018-08-01 10:00:49] - nah, i change my answer. (1000 choose 560)/21000 is pretty high actually. my new answer is 561. ~a
[2018-08-01 10:00:37] - http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=78baf4f3a070cc5b9b226664d2ce80ec i used wolfram alpha's binomial distribution calculator; the chance of 599 heads is one in 4.9 billion, but the chance of 600 heads is one in 7.3 billion, so that seems like the answer: 600. (a weirdly round number.) although i'll yield to someone else if they think there's a better model for this - aaron
[2018-08-01 09:47:11] - if we're all just picking numbers using intuition, i pick 559. ~a
[2018-08-01 09:43:08] - aaron: Top of my head I'm saying 660ish. -- Xpovos
[2018-08-01 09:42:22] - aaron: yeah i'm already sure i missed a k* in there. anyways, i have no easy way of evaluating that summation. i think it probably follows some sort of distribution. and i don't know shit about distributions. ~a
[2018-08-01 09:36:13] - aaron: i used this approach (but instead of fair-dice i had to use coin-flip-math what with the choose and whatnot). SUM of k from 1 to 1000 of ((1000 choose k)/2k)*((1000 choose 1001-k)/21000)7e9. i'm not 100% sure that's entirely correct, but that's close i think. ~a
[2018-08-01 09:34:38] - aaron: With the caveat that I am terrible with statistics and these types of things... I'm going to go higher. Maybe 720? 7 billion is a lot of people. Certainly one of those people will have an extreme outlier. -Paul
[2018-08-01 09:14:53] - This is Trivial to calculate with a P value calculator... But I haven't done that, I'm just curious what you guys think the approximate answer is. I think something like 560 - aaron
[2018-08-01 09:13:21] - 7 billion people each flip 1000 coins once. The winner is whoever gets the most heads. About how many heads does it take to win this contest? - aaron
[2018-08-01 09:10:10] - The answer is, "people will do more." *raising efficiency standards doesn't impact the margin buyer immediately (he is not buying a car right now, nor likely a new car, and that assumes an instantaneous response by the industry, etc. The efficiency standards push is a decade-long process, and has almost no measurable immediate impact--but it does, in the long term, have a significant impact.) -- Xpovos
[2018-08-01 09:08:13] - a: No. The cost of driving is pretty minimal for us, but for some people it's not. If the cost were reduced, they'd certainly do more of it. That cost can be reduced by things the Trump administration would be happy about (lowering fuel prices) or things they're fighting (raising efficiency--though that's a long term answer anyway*). But, generally, if the question is "if activity X is cheaper; will people do more, less or the same?" [...]
[2018-07-31 22:58:51] - ignoring temporarily whether states should be allowed to make regulations on gas mileages or not, can we start by agreeing that people would drive more ... if their cars get better gas mileage is moronic? ~a
[2018-07-31 15:58:09] - a: Wait, WHAT!? Percentages can be that easy? Math is awesome sometimes. That does not seem like it should work. -Paul
[2018-07-31 12:45:30] - The multiplication property of equality. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-31 12:40:44] - yep. combined with . . . moving decimal point around? not sure what property that is. ~a
[2018-07-31 12:30:57] - a: It's just the commutative property, right? -- Xpovos
[2018-07-31 10:11:30] - "x percent of y is equal to y percent of x. so, if you want to find out what 7% of 50 is, you could instead find out what 50% of 7 is, which is 3.5. this means that 7% of 50 is also equal to 3.5." just found this on reddit. it's shockingly obvious now that i've read it, but it's also something i hardly ever consider when doing financial math. there's probably some interesting ways of generalizing this concept too? (5% of 55=50% of 5.5?) ~a
[2018-07-27 18:27:30] - a: OK, none of that was in my knowledge of the situation. So, not only does Uber need to fire that person for dereliction of duty, they are probably up for some criminal charges. Uber is also in hot water. This whole thing has the chance to set back autonomous vehicles, at least in perception. You can't fuck around with that. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 16:28:37] - paul: i dunno. ~a
[2018-07-27 16:13:39] - a: Would you say "societal pressure" counts as something not "under women's control"? For example, it's not okay to say, "Women are much, much worse at working towards computer science degrees"? -Paul
[2018-07-27 16:01:24] - xpovos: so i watched the dash-cam video. pedestrian wasn't running across the road. and the safety-driver wasn't watching the road (eyes were on her phone for a very long period of time before the crash). not-cool. ~a
[2018-07-27 15:42:10] - paul: it also probably depends on how true and how explainable the statement is? it's a controversial wording, so make sure it's both completely factual (like not a grey area or a borderline-true statement) and . . . not easily explained away (explained by factors that aren't under women's control)? ~a
[2018-07-27 15:38:33] - paul: well it depends on the topic and the audience. women are marginalized in our society, so it's not like it's even a comparable situation. ~a
[2018-07-27 15:36:00] - For the record, I have no problem at all with that sentence. As far as I know, the facts completely back it up. My question is: Is there anything where it would be socially acceptable to say: "Women are much, much worse across the board" in terms of doing something? -Paul
[2018-07-27 15:34:26] - https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/uber-pedestrian-death-doesnt-mean-self-driving-cars-are-more-dangerous-than-human-drivers.html I don't have a ton of time to get into this, and it's a complete topic change, so feel free to ignore, but I came across this article and was struck by this sentence: "Men are much, much worse drivers across the board". -Paul
[2018-07-27 15:33:32] - a: Problem is, by the time we realize they're safer, we'll probably already have crossed the line. -Paul
[2018-07-27 15:20:26] - paul: though i'd probably go even more extreme than that. even if we're close to the line, but haven't yet crossed it, i'd be fine switching en masse, because driverless tech will continue to improve (and humans i think will continue to worsen as distractions increase). the problem we're at today is i worry that we're nowhere near the line. ~a
[2018-07-27 15:17:46] - paul: of course. ~a
[2018-07-27 15:15:58] - a: Question: If we had the numbers to show that self-driving cars were safer than human drivers (let's say something like 80% as many fatalities), but things like that Arizona accident still happen where the system seemingly catastrophically fails, would you be okay with society switching en masse? -Paul
[2018-07-27 15:01:34] - xpovos: in short, (imo) driverless cars still have a long way to go. i'm not sure, either way, if they've passed the line where they're less dangerous than humans. ~a
[2018-07-27 14:59:45] - xpovos: according to a self driving car expert there was "a complete failure of the system to recognize an obviously seen person who is visible for quite some distance in the frame. uber has some serious explaining to do about why this person wasn’t seen and why the system didn’t engage" ~a
[2018-07-27 14:58:54] - xpovos: "I think the driver not hitting the brakes until after the collision goes to speak of the speed of the incident--why the algorithms couldn't have done anything" yeah this part is just false. the operator was streaming "the voice" on hulu according to police. ~a
[2018-07-27 14:57:16] - xpovos: this is from that wikipedia page. apparently it did detect a bicycle, but the part of the system that detects a bicycle was intentionally disconnected from the part of the system that could brake. "the system was not designed to alert the operator, and did not make an emergency stop on its own accord". ~a
[2018-07-27 14:38:36] - a: That's the situation. I don't know why I thought it was Nevada. I'd not heard anything about any safety mechanisms being turned off. I think the driver not hitting the brakes until after the collision goes to speak of the speed of the incident--why the algorithms couldn't have done anything. But obviously I know even less about the situation than I thought I did. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 14:32:48] - if you're literally crossing the street without a crosswalk, you've broken some laws. but i'm still 90% sure other drivers will have also broken laws if they fucking hit your ass. "contributory negligence states" (which arizona is not) are apparently really shitty for the pedestrians about this sort of thing. ~a
[2018-07-27 14:30:08] - xpovos: on the other side of the equation, the pedestrian was definitely not in the crosswalk. also she was high apparently. i'm not sure if she was running across the street or not . . . i think that sort-of matters, right? ~a
[2018-07-27 14:27:29] - xpovos: "Is that victim blaming?" not necessarily. in all honestly, it's only victim blaming if there is a victim. if you're talking about arizona in march, i think this is a giant grey area. there were tons of mistakes on both sides. on both sides. the safety driver fucked up bad (didn't hit the breaks until after the collision). and i had also heard that some security protocols had been disabled. ~a
[2018-07-27 14:17:36] - But truly autonomous vehicles seem like they're probably a ways off for now. So we need a short-term solution to improve safety. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 14:16:59] - I'm in agreement that automated vehicles will be a major source of improving road safety, for everyone. That includes cyclists and pedestrians, as long as they follow their own rules as well. The highly publicized autonomous vehicle hitting a pedestrian in NV situation was because the pedestrian walked out in front of a moving vehicle. No one could've stopped that. Except the pedestrian. Is that victim blaming? -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 14:10:16] - a: Sure. I wasn't necessarily trying to load that phrasing. -Paul
[2018-07-27 14:07:52] - a: Fair. I completely made up that statistic so I accept yours, although I would argue that biking on trails doesn't count towards being on the road.
-Paul[2018-07-27 14:06:52] - paul: "put themselves in danger" this wording seems biased. do you agree? ~a
[2018-07-27 14:06:49] - a: How to fix the problem? I have no idea. My hope is that as self-driving cars improve and tele-commuting becomes more popular, then congestion will lessen and these problems will almost solve themselves. I don't have any answers for you. -Paul
[2018-07-27 14:06:21] - paul: one additional correction. 99% is strictly incorrect. according to everything i've read for our area, 4.5% of commuters bike (you'll notice a lot of them down the w&od and adjacent trails). which means, since there are plenty of commuters who walk, the 99% is probably closer to 90% or 95%. ~a
[2018-07-27 14:05:57] - a: And there have been times when I notice them as I drive by....ie, I was the jerk that blew through the crosswalk and didn't stop. I feel horrible about it. It's completely my fault, but it was also completely unintentional. -Paul
[2018-07-27 14:05:10] - a: The crosswalk is a great example. There's one near my work that 99% of the time there are no pedestrians at and for whatever reason it tends to be invisible to me when I drive by. So when there ARE pedestrians, and I see them, I almost always have to slam on my brakes because I'm so used to NOT having to look. -Paul
[2018-07-27 14:03:31] - a: But I also hope you believe that when I was an ass, it was 100% inadvertent. I don't like pissing people off, believe it or not.
It's like being around a hyper-sensitive person who (in my opinion) can't take a joke. I don't want to be around them because I don't want to have to stress out over offending them. -Paul[2018-07-27 14:02:32] - a: But I also just wish they weren't on the road. Not because I hate them, but because I am worried that I am contributing to the problem. I'm 100% certain I was a complete ass to a cyclist at some point in my driving career by either passing too close or not looking when turning or something... -Paul
[2018-07-27 14:01:33] - a: Can I be compassionate while also being annoyed by them? I go back to the car accident situation. I'm compassionate that they got into an accident and hope nobody is hurt.... but I still am annoyed and frustrated by the inconvenience. I think I'm the same way with cyclists. I understand they are dealing with a hostile roadway and put themselves in danger... -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:55:21] - (more to xpovos's point) people do this when i'm walking too. it's not a biking thing for me apparently. it's mainly those crosswalks that do *not* have a traffic light. they're invisible to a percentage of drivers. then when they see me, they (inexplicably) decide not to slow down. and try to drive around me. ~a
[2018-07-27 13:51:27] - honking isn't actually the worst of it . . . the worst of it are the people that seriously don't slow down at all when they're riding in my direction of travel, and i'm in a fucking crosswalk. ~a
[2018-07-27 13:50:13] - "The current system of cyclists on roads which are 99% used by cars is not ideal for either." ok how do we fix this problem? help me come up with a solution, or at least an incremental improvement, that makes both you happy and me happy. ~a
[2018-07-27 13:49:38] - paul: "I'm saying it is virtually impossible for me to bike to work. I must drive." i don't want to pick a fight with you. i also really don't want you to bike to work. you live way way too far away from your workplace. i *do* want you (not really you, but the others that like to honk at me) to be more compassionate to other legal road users. ~a
[2018-07-27 13:48:25] - a: I think we agree on the major point: The current system of cyclists on roads which are 99% used by cars is not ideal for either. -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:48:10] - xpovos: my dad had a similar story where he went over the hood of a car in the late 1980s. he also bought a new car around that time. the big difference (imo) is 1980s != 2018. lots of stuff has improved since the 80s, which is probably the worst decade in earth's history for biking. maybe the 90s were worse, i dunno. i.e. in the 80s/90s, biking reached a valley until obesity/ecology trends started pushing us back away from cars. ~a
[2018-07-27 13:47:40] - a: I think that last point is important. I don't blame cyclists for this. It doesn't have to be somebody's fault. I also don't like to encounter accidents or school buses because they slow down traffic. Doesn't mean I hate kids going to school. -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:46:01] - a: And as somebody who drives, I wish I didn't have to deal with cyclists because they seem to add a HUGE level of variability and danger when I encounter them. They are often much slower, don't follow the exact same rules as cars, and are much squishier. I don't blame the cyclists for this. -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:44:15] - a: Also, again, it feels like you're trying to pick a fight with me that I frankly have no interest in fighting. You like to bike to work. Fine. I think that you think others should bike to work. Great. I'm not saying you shouldn't or others shouldn't. I'm saying it is virtually impossible for me to bike to work. I must drive. -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:40:28] - a: Yeah, Twitter is down big, although I don't really know why. Their earnings report looked good. It seems like people are focusing on the decrease in MAUs but ignoring the increase in DAUs... -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:39:14] - a: I don't know what assumptions. You say "in the next 30 years, we won't be able to separate biking traffic from car traffic without removing a few car lanes". Why? -Paul
[2018-07-27 13:38:27] - Ouch, yeah. Twitter's nose dive has pushed me back into first. That hurts for Paul in the challenge, I'm sure, but it's gotta hurt worse for actual owners of FB/TWTR. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 13:37:07] - Living in the same general area now, I still see essentially no bikers. I do see a significantly increased number of walkers, though. Walking is far safer than biking. You're not in the traffic lanes, except at intersections, and most of those are controlled by stop lights. It's also slower, though. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 13:35:40] - first day, and it was such a close call that he made the wise, but perhaps unfortunate (for his health, except in the case of death) decision, not to become a statistic. We got a second car a few months later, because without a second car life in the suburbs with two working adults was impractical. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-27 13:34:39] - A biking story. My parents went down to one car at one point, for financial reasons, in the late 1980s. Dale City was a lot less crowded back then and IIRC we basically lived at the end of a road, so the traffic was a lot lighter as well--no through traffic. My father decided to try biking to the local bus stops (a few miles, doable, vs. the bike to work which would've been 30 miles). He was almost hit by cars not paying attention on his
[2018-07-27 13:31:43] - it's a bad day to be heavily invested in tech. ~a
[2018-07-27 13:30:20] - paul: jesus christ i just checked the stork mork't. wtf? ~a
[2018-07-27 11:45:50] - paul: maybe some day i'll move here. or maybe some day these will come to nova? to caption this picture, car roads have yield-signs when crossing (very wide) bike paths instead of the other way around. ~a
[2018-07-27 11:30:33] - paul: which assumptions? that we won't be able to separate out car traffic and bike traffic without removing a car lane? i've been to a lot of bike-lane meetings where they won't even paint a bike-lane let alone have a protected bike lane. separating out the traffic entirely just uses too much road-width on roads that they don't really want to change too much. ~a
[2018-07-27 11:24:36] - a: Your other point I don't really follow. I feel like there's a lot of assumptions you're making that I either don't agree with or simply don't understand. 30 years is a long time, and I very much suspect transportation will change a huge amount with self driving cars and other things in that time, so I don't feel at all confident extrapolating things out like bike lanes that far. -Paul
[2018-07-27 11:22:57] - a: "you're basically saying people should exercise their rights if it's a law that is good for you, and they shouldn't if it's not" I guess you can take what I am saying that way, but I think it's more that I think people should be allowed to do things that I don't like. -Paul
[2018-07-27 11:17:20] - "Difference between what I think people have a right to do and what I like?" ok i have a second problem with this. you're basically saying people should exercise their rights if it's a law that is good for you, and they shouldn't if it's not. this puts people in a shitty mood, i think. ~a
[2018-07-27 11:16:00] - paul: sure ok, how about this, in the next 30 years, we won't be able to separate biking traffic from car traffic without removing a few car lanes. i assume you're not ok with removing a few car lanes in the short-term even if it means less traffic, but at the same time, you want these people to stay off your roads. where do you want us to go? do you want us all to just start driving to work, etc and clog up the roads even more? ~a
[2018-07-27 11:06:07] - Godwin's Law!
[2018-07-27 11:05:35] - a: I don't recall the situation with the truck and the smooshed lady. -Paul
[2018-07-27 11:05:15] - a: Difference between what I think people have a right to do and what I like? I also think Nazis have a right to march, but doesn't mean I like them.
-Paul[2018-07-27 10:55:53] - paul: "Do you think I do that?" yes. maybe not intentionally, and maybe not often, but i definitely got some of that from you (actually maybe it was aaron) on the conversation we had with the truck driver that smooshed that lady. "I don't like bikes on the road". yeah, ok, well that's weird though, because you're usually for people exercising their rights when they don't infringe on other peoples rights. why is this the exception? ~a
[2018-07-27 10:53:43] - a: To me, cyclists are an extra variable to account for that I so infrequently deal with that I sometimes forget to account for them. I admit that's my fault, and I am not trying to blame the cyclists. I just think it's a bad arrangement to have cyclists using the same roads that cars use. -Paul
[2018-07-27 10:52:16] - a: Do you think I do that? I sometimes get the impression there is a gap in understanding between us on this topic. I don't like bikes on the road, this is true, but it's not out of animosity towards cyclists. It's because I'm terrified I am going to hit them (or do something "wrong" and almost hit them). -Paul
[2018-07-27 10:39:03] - at least it should, given the lecturing we normies get on the subject. - mig
[2018-07-27 10:38:33] - a: it's not just the admission of guilt on its own though. The admission about looking at his phone ups the charge of negligence by a big degree. - mig
[2018-07-27 10:35:08] - mig: yes, agreed. my guess is (assuming the cop doesn't just pay for the damage to the bike) the video will be official record, so his admission of guilt would be official record? ~a
[2018-07-27 10:33:46] - daniel: yeah that wasn't my thought at all, but sure why not
~a[2018-07-27 10:32:32] - paul: no you're probably *not* reading too much into it. i've been part of some threads online and there are a lot of apologists. there are people who are quick to defend the indefensible because "tribalism". victim blaming and whatnot. it's something i deal with on a *regular* basis IRL: with car drivers honking at me and almost hitting me on a daily basis, so it's interesting (or maybe just morbid curiosity) how you guys respond. ~a
[2018-07-27 10:32:08] - a: well the officer admitting "officially" in a report that he was looking at his phone as the cause of the accident would be a very big deal i think. - mig
[2018-07-27 10:30:27] - Like a driving PSA. -Daniel
[2018-07-27 10:30:06] - Paul: Maybe just a reminder to keep your head up and try not to run over anyone. -Daniel
[2018-07-27 10:10:40] - a: I don't mind you posting these a lot, but I guess I also don't know what we're supposed to do with them. It feels like you're expecting me to defend the car driver or blame the cyclist or that it's some sort of subtle (or maybe non-subtle) attack on car driving culture in general, but maybe I am reading too much into it? -Paul
[2018-07-27 10:09:38] - mig: yes, i wonder the same things, based on what he said. it's probably easy to prove/disprove. (not disagreeing with you, but maybe disagreeing with others) i'm not sure if looking at your phone "officially" excuses smashing your car into things. ironically texing and driving isn't a law in that state, so he'll just have to be charged with running over a human. (imo) hopefully the charge sticks. ~a
[2018-07-27 10:01:41] - a: It doesn't really say, but I'm wondering in the police report if the cop admits to looking at his phone "officially". I'll also assume this guy is looking at a lawsuit towards the PD (and rightly so). - mig
[2018-07-27 09:51:21] - a: bike/dash cams seem like a vital thing to have these days. - mig
[2018-07-27 08:29:52] - also obviously you don't have to watch the whole video if you don't want. i can answer any questions about the last minute or two. ~a
[2018-07-27 08:28:30] - here's a video with a collision. i skipped the first 35 seconds. sorry i post these so much. i watch about two or three of these every day (via bikecammers on reddit), so be satisfied that i only post one of them every month or so? anyways, do you have any thoughts? ~a
[2018-07-27 07:34:47] - Ugh, sorry, that was supposed to be directed at Daniel. -Paul
[2018-07-27 07:34:34] - a: I'm always game for diplomacy. If you're looking for some good online mobile games, though, a few of us are playing Through the Ages (think a simplified version of Civ for the phone) and Galaxy Trucker (I think you're familiar). Both are ports of board games. -Paul
[2018-07-26 17:26:28] - daniel: "Badfrog" is the publisher? ~a
[2018-07-26 16:58:11] - There is an android app for Diplomacy (the game) called Conspiracy. I would try a game on it if anyone was interested! -Daniel
[2018-07-26 16:54:58] - i have more bonds than individual stocks. like twice as much actually. ~a
[2018-07-26 16:53:56] - wooo, am i winning the bond race? i have ~9% bonds. ~a
[2018-07-26 16:43:55] - Paul: I'd have to go check to be sure but its between 90 and 95% stocks with the rest bonds. Maybe like 30ish% international. Yeah I think somewhere in that last decade transitioning down to like 50/55% stocks. Something like that. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 16:23:30] - Daniel: Also, I'm not planning to be less than 100% in stocks until at least 10 years before retirement.... maybe even closer. I believe I have a high tolerance for risk and want to trade that for maximum returns. -Paul
[2018-07-26 16:12:34] - Daniel: How aggressive of an investor do you consider yourself to be? I consider myself very aggressive, even ignoring my tendency towards individual stocks. I'm basically 100% in stocks (no bonds) and I try to be higher in international and small caps to get bigger growth there. -Paul
[2018-07-26 15:11:32] - a: I did that for awhile, but there were too many times when I wanted to buy something but didn't want to sell anything. I had a growing watchlist, so I eventually made the change. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:56:57] - paul: well here's another place where you and i differ. i mostly want new-money to go into index funds (and things similar to index funds). if i have an idea for a "new and cool" stock to invest in, i'll sell something else to pay for it. ~a
[2018-07-26 14:55:21] - Daniel: Basically, I value diversification more than I am confident in my abilities. I like the upside that my individual stocks seem to provide, but I also like the safety that index funds provide. I think, for now, there is a place for both for me. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:53:12] - Daniel: On the flip side, though, I don't have any intention of switching index fund money into individual stocks. The only switch I made was directing some of my future 401(k) contributions from mutual funds (they aren't all index funds) to a self directed brokerage account so I had money coming in for new stock ideas. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:51:45] - Daniel: When I made this divide a few years ago, my intention was to let it run for at least 5 years (maybe longer) to "test" if I could beat the market. As long as I keep beating it, I'm inclined to let it run. I also kinda enjoy investing so the fact that (as of now) I can enjoy doing it AND basically make money is icing. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:48:16] - daniel: "put your money where your mouth is" i think we both do (him much more-so than me). even if i only have 5% in my "individual" fund, that's still a lot of money where my mouth is. ~a
[2018-07-26 14:44:50] - -Daniel
[2018-07-26 14:44:47] - Paul: Well ok then. do you plan on letting the individual stock portions grow or will you cap them / rebalance some back into index funds?
[2018-07-26 14:44:19] - a: Mostly just in the put your money where your mouth is kind of thing. I thought he was still much more heavy in index funds but apparently not! -Daniel
[2018-07-26 14:40:41] - daniel: "When you decide to stop using index funds in your retirement accounts let me know" why would this need to be the line? even if we're 100% confident we can beat the index-funds 75% of the time ("EV" of beating the index funds), it still makes sense to own some index funds. right? ~a
[2018-07-26 14:39:17] - Daniel: I know you were (probably?) being facetious, but I think the amount of my retirement fund in individual stocks is getting close to the amount that I have in index funds. Some of that is just because my individual stocks have performed better, though, rather than a conscious decision. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:37:53] - And much of that outperformance is significant. My returns were 4x the market in the first challenge and is more than that in the 2nd so far. Adrian, of course, crushed the market in the first and is doubling the market in the 2nd as well. The Fool 100 is also tripling Daniel right now in the 2nd challenge. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:36:02] - I know it's still a super small sample size and all, but I do think it's worth pointing out just how decisively the passive index fund strategy has been trounced in the three challenges so far. Out of the 7 individual portfolios going up against Daniel, 5 have won, and that's including some that might not be serious (A Poopy Fart). -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:35:50] - Paul: Shrug. You guys have done a good job picking so far. When you decide to stop using index funds in your retirement accounts let me know
-Daniel[2018-07-26 14:30:40] - a: I'm still comfortable with my lead in both challenges... especially over Daniel. -Paul
[2018-07-26 14:30:06] - Daniel: That's fair, and that's ultimately where I come down as well, I think. -Paul
[2018-07-26 12:25:26] - paul: regarding 2018q3 . . . now we're talking. it's a 3 point game. ~a
[2018-07-26 12:19:43] - So I guess in summary I don't think there is a one size fits all answer for the subject of speech and perceived harm. Its going to depend a lot on context, people involved, and the person judging it. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 12:18:38] - But if the word rose comes up in a conversation later and the person is there then on some level its unreasonable for you to never say the word rose again so its probably on them to get some therapy or something to get over hearing the word rose. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 12:17:57] - Like maybe someone had a Mom named Rose who was killed by an evil gardener with a poison rose and left rose petals all around their mom's body that spelled out the word rose. So maybe everytime that person hears the word Rose they are harmed. So maybe the first time you say it you aren't responsible for that harm. However after learning this if you just starting chanting rose then you are a dick. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 12:15:46] - Paul: I think in this case there are different parts. I think the same way as before if you reasonably could explain why you didn't know then sure you get a pass for the beginning but would then be responsible for later instances. However I think there are cases where people genuinely can argue that the harmed person shouldn't be harmed and then its up to just like a reasonable person standard and people will probably disagree. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 12:00:21] - Daniel: Like, if I say something with zero ill intention and no idea how it could offend anybody, but somebody gets mad... should I feel bad? How much of that is my fault? -Paul
[2018-07-26 11:59:46] - Daniel: Hmmm, I guess that makes sense since that middle person was the one getting the responsibility before. I guess I am just looking at it from the speaker's point of view (and to be clear, I am not trying to push any position, this is something I struggle with myself so I wonder how others feel).... -Paul
[2018-07-26 11:54:24] - Paul: I think the addition or removal or a middle-person is very important in the responsibility(or lack thereof) of the original person. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 11:53:04] - Daniel: I agree it's different, but I think the concepts underlying both are similar. I think both involve if responsibility lies with the speaker (and their intent) or the listener (and their perception). In both cases there is somebody saying something with no intent to harm, and another person being harmed by those words anyway. This just removes the middle-man (or woman). -Paul
[2018-07-26 11:52:17] - In the case of Redskins I think its not a clearly defined thing. I think people are arguing about what is "reasonable" and who gets to decide what. I think Synder is potentially responsible depending on if one finds it reasonable that people are harmed by Redskins. But if one finds it unreasonable to be harmed by Redskins then one would not assign 'blame' to Snyder. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 11:49:55] - Paul: I think this is a different argument than someone who says something and a second party then inflicts some other different harm on a third party. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 11:47:28] - Daniel: Okay, so let's go with Redskins or Braves then. Should Dan Snyder or whoever owns the Braves (or even their players and fans) feel responsible for the hurt the team name inflicts on people who are offended by it? -Paul
[2018-07-26 11:37:40] - Braves isn't a pejorative. I think you could make a case for Brave being 'honoring their native heritage' vs Redskins which came from a slur. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 11:27:32] - (honest question because i don't know shit about the braves) how are the braves and the redskins different? ~a
[2018-07-26 11:06:40] - I don't know who James Gunn is but I think Redskins is closer to an example of where there can be different sides to an argument (though honestly probably not for Redskins, maybe like the Braves or something) where people disagree. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 11:05:19] - Paul: I think its possible to do harm when no harm was intended. I think its also possible to convey a normal nice message and have someone go crazy off it. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 10:54:52] - Daniel: Okay, what about the Redskins example, then? Or maybe James Gunn's jokes? Basically, any example where the speaker truly intended no harm, but the listener perceived it. I know they're different, but they seem to touch on a similar idea regarding things said in terms of whether intent matters or perception matters. -Paul
[2018-07-26 10:38:22] - Paul: I'm not sure you can separate honoring their southern heritage and southern heritage's relationship to slavery / racism. Like if someone on youtube was like I hate violence but then just talks about being pro murder I would think they were dumb or disingenuous. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 10:37:59] - southern heritage . . . ~a
[2018-07-26 10:35:42] - Daniel: Hmmm, okay. So let me ask you this: Do you see any similarity between these examples and somebody who flies the confederate flag solely and sincerely to honor their southern heritage, despite knowing that some people find it hurtful? Another example might be the term Redskins for a football team. -Paul
[2018-07-26 10:33:25] - Paul: I think both intent and how people take it are important but if people's actions clearly don't match the person's intent because that person is a little crazy or something then I'm not sure you can really hold the creator responsible. Like if someone told some gardener on youtube they were going to murder someone every time they said the word rose then I don't think the youtuber is responsible for murder. -Daniel
[2018-07-26 10:16:17] - a: Right, but why would twitter advertising spend go down along with facebook if only facebook is having these privacy issues? -Paul
[2018-07-26 10:15:30] - Daniel: Our discussion from before about responsibility made me think of another kind of Devil's Advocate argument that I think is related (although you might disagree). Is it fair to say that you are saying that the intent of the person speaking is what matters and not how people take it? -Paul
[2018-07-26 10:13:36] - regardless there's not only one type of online advertising. very niche. ~a
[2018-07-26 10:12:19] - paul: "companies aren't just going to stop spending on online advertising". stop completely? why is that the only option? couldn't companies divert some small amount of money from online advertising to other kinds of advertising? or hold back a little sliver one year to spend on a different year? even a 1% move in spending from one kind of advertising to another type of advertising could affect profit margins by huge huge amounts. ~a
[2018-07-26 10:08:05] - aXpovos: But it seems to me that companies aren't just going to stop spending on online advertising. If they're spending less on Facebook, wouldn't it stand that their competitors would gain? I don't see anything inherent about Facebook's troubles that would seem to directly relate to Twitter troubles. -Paul
[2018-07-26 09:41:31] - worded differently, in a super-small area like online-advertising-based-on-social-networking, if one has high or low earnings, it's actually more of a sign of how well online-advertising-based-on-social-networking is doing as a concept. ~a
[2018-07-26 08:57:07] - xpovos/paul: i agree and i don't. it depends. if they're both producing a product that directly competes, but in a sector is stable, then if one goes up, the other will often go down. if they're both part of a sector that either does badly or does well together, then if one goes up/down, they both will go up/down. iow, there are two variables (market/sector health, and corporate/product health). ~a
[2018-07-26 08:38:09] - Too similar. If Facebook underperformed, Twitter will underpeform. That's the logic at least. -- Xpovos
[2018-07-26 07:26:13] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/tech-stocks-poised-for-bloodbath-on-thursday-with-facebook-on-track-fo.html "Facebook competitors Twitter and Snap were still feeling the pain, both lost 4 percent in premarket trading." Can somebody explain the logic here? I would think with Facebook having disappointing results, that should be favorable for Twitter. -Paul
[2018-07-25 16:49:03] - Paul: At some point the responsibility for the actions lies with them if you are clear about your desires. -Daniel
[2018-07-25 16:41:26] - Daniel: I agree with you that those people have free will and I'm not necessarily saying I am responsible, but it's hard to ignore the fact that that person likely wouldn't have been beaten up if I hadn't written anything, and that I could predict in advance it would happen. It's like Minority Report level stuff. -Paul
[2018-07-25 16:40:30] - Daniel: And even though I was sincere, it happens again. Now, if I write a third article about how I dislike a third politician, even if I repeatedly say not to beat them up, and then they get beat up.... I mean, on some level I had to have known my words would cause that, right? -Paul
[2018-07-25 16:39:39] - Daniel: Well, even without getting into free will, I think it gets messy. Let me give a concrete example. Let's say I write a Rampant Discourse post about how I think some politician sucks. Then my loyal RD follows go beat that politician up. Next, I write something about how I abhor violence and please don't beat up anybody, but I also dislike another person.... -Paul
prev <-> next