prev <-> next
[2018-11-08 10:22:22] - Xpovos: Wow, that must be about as exciting as it gets, to have a Senatorial candidate stop by to vote... -Paul
[2018-11-08 10:22:06] - And one more, FWIW, I posted CP as a useful tool for undestanding etc., not because I always agree with what CP says. I do find the videos to be informative and high quality though, so if you like this one, check some of the others out. This one is probably my favorite: https://youtu.be/lmsoVFCUN3Q -- Xpovos
[2018-11-08 10:20:37] - a: Following up again: awesome that your mom joined the election officers. I love the job but we need more people, and I'm confident she'll do great. My SIL's boyfriend got roped in too, so he'll probably be an officer next election. How he got roped was a funny story, but I don't think it would work as well on mboard due to lack of familiarity with the characters and the length of the story. -- Xpovos
[2018-11-08 10:18:54] - Here's a video that might help guys, https://youtu.be/9bbINLWtMKI ContraPoints "Pronouns". -- Xpovos
[2018-11-08 10:17:58] - a: I did miss it! Sorry. The turnout was really heavy. We were 40 voters short of the 2016 Presidential turnout. My precinct split hard D, which is not surprising. It leans D to to start. My precinct is the home precinct for Stewart, so he stopped by to vote, so I had a media circus for about half an hour. -- Xpovos
[2018-11-08 10:17:11] - Paul: How often are you referring to someone's sex? You could say "your biological sex is still male so you can't get a pap smear yet" -Daniel
[2018-11-08 10:14:58] - Xpovos: So, in theory, it shouldn't be offensive to refer to somebody as... uh.... sexually a female if they were born female and think they are a male? That doesn't sound right. How does one refer to somebody's sex and not gender? -Paul
[2018-11-08 10:14:11] - yesterday = tuesday i guess. ~a
[2018-11-08 10:13:57] - xpovos: reposting from yesterday, because you might have missed it. how were elections this year? my mother joined your ranks yesterday (starting at the bottom i assume) in fairfax county. ~a
[2018-11-08 10:12:34] - Paul: I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that last question. I know its at least an idea out there that I think is growing? "Generally Accepted" is trickier to say. I'm not sure how most R's would answer the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction -Daniel
[2018-11-08 10:10:55] - Paul: Gender is 99% social constructs. Sex implies it, but they are different. -- Xpovos
[2018-11-08 10:09:36] - Daniel: "biological sex and gender don't have to be the same" Interesting. I never thought of it that way. Is that a generally accepted viewpoint, do you know? -Paul
[2018-11-08 10:08:32] - Daniel: Not trying to cruise to a gotcha moment. Trying to find where the lines are drawn these days. Does it bother me? I guess it depends on what "it" is. Not necessarily bothered by this guy trying to legally change his age. It seems to me like a logical extension of where things are going so I'm interested in seeing how it turns out. -Paul
[2018-11-08 10:07:13] - I think the theory is that biological sex and gender don't have to be the same though they generally are. -Daniel
[2018-11-08 10:06:27] - Daniel: Okay, so is a pre-op transgender person (sorry if I am getting some terminology wrong) still their biological gender to you, then? And not the gender they prefer to be called? -Paul
[2018-11-08 10:05:50] - Paul: Is this something that actually bothers you or that you care about or just something that apparently isn't trolling but seems like cruising to find a gotcha moment? -Daniel
[2018-11-08 10:04:40] - Paul: I don't know either. I guess I don't think of sex in terms of chromosomes but I guess its technically true. I guess in that light I would find hormone therapy and gender surgery stuff sufficient to feel a person has actually changed but would deem plastic surgery insufficient to claim your age has changed. -Daniel
[2018-11-08 10:02:10] - Daniel: Okay. Honest question: Do we have a way to change somebody's chromosomes? I don't think we do, but I'm not sure. -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:59:20] - Paul: No? Because they can't actually change it? Maybe if we had light speed travel or cryo sleep or something? -Daniel
[2018-11-08 09:50:11] - Daniel: Well, let me ask you this, then: Do you think somebody should be allowed to legally change their age? If not, why? -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:47:16] - Paul: I don't understand what changing one's gender has to do with changing your age. I'm not sure why precedent on the one applies to the other? -Daniel
[2018-11-08 09:46:18] - Not asked, but I don't see it as a problem. I have been amused that a large number of people who really would otherwise hate Sessions are so adamant that he keep his job. It's the twisty path of the Trump politics. -- Xpovos
[2018-11-08 09:44:28] - a: Did I say that I don't see it as a problem? When did you stop beating your wife? -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:39:01] - paul: yes there are protests today. he fired sessions, and his successor is going to take over for rosenstein. you don't see this as a problem? ~a
[2018-11-08 09:38:19] - a: How about pardoning Alice Johnson? Does that not count? -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:37:25] - mig/paul/xpovos: "Yeah, ditto to what Xpovos and mig said. I basically don't believe a word of what Trump says, so I just try to judge him by his actions" all that is fair. i agree with all three of you. however, he hasn't actually taken any actions either way. "willing to listen and act on clemency requests" willing to listen are just words too. i won't hold my breath. ~a
[2018-11-08 09:35:14] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/europe/dutch-man-legal-age-scli-intl/index.html I know people will probably think I'm trolling, but this is a serious question: If people can legally change their gender to what they prefer, why not their age? -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:33:36] - a: But yeah, to your point, it does generally run counter to most of his rhetoric. -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:33:23] - a: Yeah, ditto to what Xpovos and mig said. I basically don't believe a word of what Trump says, so I just try to judge him by his actions. That's hard too, since his actions are all over the place. However, he has done some promising things in terms of criminal justice reform in the past and I think maybe he could do more in the future. -Paul
[2018-11-08 09:31:59] - a: There are protests today? I guess that's a stupid question. Probably safe to assume there are protests every day there is a Republican president in office.
There are notable protests today? -Paul[2018-11-08 09:25:53] - i assume nobody here is going to any of the protests today? ~a
[2018-11-08 08:45:17] - "Lindsey Graham once vowed that there would be 'holy hell to pay' if President Donald Trump ever fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions" surprising to nobody, "holy hell" was just rhetoric ~a
[2018-11-07 19:05:24] - xpovos: generally, yes. Which is why I tend to follow what he actually does. Ex: I don't really freak out over Trump railing about strengthening libel laws. Not only does he not have the authority to do anything about it, he hasn't even made any movements on the subject. On criminal justice reform, you at least have him willing to listen and act on clemency requests, and there is Kushner's work on the issue as well. - mig
[2018-11-07 18:27:00] - a: I think it's very reasonable to never believe Trump about anything he says. -- Xpovos
[2018-11-07 17:29:35] - mig/paul: yes ok, thank you for the info. however, it seems to go counter to shit that he's said dozens of times though. in other words, i don't know if i believe him when he says he's serious about criminal justice reform. ~a
[2018-11-07 17:27:36] - https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/410914-trump-ill-overrule-sessions-on-criminal-justice-reform - mig
[2018-11-07 17:05:11] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/06/21/trump-asked-nfl-players-for-pardon-suggestions-on-thursday-they-responded/?utm_term=.1a30e07c3680 Also this. -Paul
[2018-11-07 17:04:23] - a: To be clear, I am pretty much in agreement with you. 99% of the time he's pretty horrible on criminal justice reform. But he has shown to be... possibly able to be influenced on this. -Paul
[2018-11-07 17:03:30] - a: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/trump-alice-johnson-sentence-commuted-kim-kardashian-west.html -Paul
[2018-11-07 16:53:41] - paul/mig: what are you guys talking about? (i'm not being sarcastic. i'm seriously asking) i thought trump was very pro-law-and-order. he's non-stop talking about being "tough on crime" and how the dems are "weak on crime". why would you assume he's going to do anything (positive) on criminal justice reform. ~a
[2018-11-07 16:27:41] - mig: Right, which is why I tempered what I said. It seems like his gut instinct is very anti-criminal justice reform, but he has shown flashes of being open to listening to celebrities. -Paul
[2018-11-07 16:27:10] - I mean he did talk about "unfair prison sentences" not really too long ago, and it's something that seems to be a pet project for Jared Kushner. - mig
[2018-11-07 16:26:27] - paul: I don't know about that. i think the trick is getting more Kim Kardasians or other celebs to talk to him and he might come around. - mig
[2018-11-07 15:32:50] - a: I know the Russia investigation is what's on everybody's mind, but I'm far more interested in what this could mean for marijuana legalization. I would include criminal justice reform in there but I suspect Trump is closer to Sessions than he is to me. -Paul
[2018-11-07 15:27:56] - cnn is saying that rod rosenstein might be off the russia investigation, which could trigger automatic protests? ~a
[2018-11-07 15:23:47] - a: What would be even more amazing is if a million dollars comes my way. *Waits patiently for an hour and a half* -Paul
[2018-11-07 15:20:46] - 13:56 paul makes prediction. 15:14 cnn posts about it. wtf that's amazing. ~a
[2018-11-07 15:19:10] - ha. ~a
[2018-11-07 15:17:07] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/sessions-resign/index.html Maybe I should buy a lottery ticket... -Paul
[2018-11-07 13:56:21] - a: Right, but I get the feeling it might return to its highs before the year is out. Just imagine if Sessions steps down or some other positive sign for marijuana legalization pops up. It'll go crazy. -Paul
[2018-11-07 13:48:23] - "acb now" . . . huh. i think it's hard to call -1% "good timing"
it had been in the 2s last year. ~a[2018-11-07 13:43:51] - a: I'm still a little sore over the Mazor buyout. Yeah, it's my second best performer, but the premium that it got bought out for was crummy. It had been in the 70s earlier in the year. -Paul
[2018-11-07 13:42:35] - a: I've been gaining on you in Q3, although at a much slower rate. -Paul
[2018-11-07 13:41:58] - a: That's a massive gain today, no doubt. Wouldn't be surprised if you won. You managed to tap into some good timing with gbtc before and acb now (even though it's down 1% currently). -Paul
[2018-11-07 13:40:48] - a: Beto lost last night, as will you and your beta.... -Paul
[2018-11-07 13:20:46] - my beta is high. ~a
[2018-11-07 13:20:17] - paul: are you getting nervous about the stock market challenge? ~a
[2018-11-07 12:24:29] - mig: I didn't even realize that Mass. apparently still has a Republican governor? -Paul
[2018-11-07 12:18:08] - paul: interesting note from yesterdays discussion about red governors in blue states. Both Hogan (MD) and Scott (VT) won pretty handily. - mig
[2018-11-07 11:54:31] - yeah that doesn't make sense to me. ~a
[2018-11-07 11:38:00] - a: The majority of those 63 million voted for him maybe? -Paul
[2018-11-07 11:25:57] - last week sarah sanders said that the president was "elected by an overwhelming majority of 63 million americans". uh, what? ~a
[2018-11-07 11:20:35] - paul: the thing that I don't understand is Betomania. - mig
[2018-11-07 10:55:17] - aaron: Looks like your broker should've taken your money. -Paul
[2018-11-07 10:53:25] - paul: I think he has his liabilities, I think he'll have more issues in a primary then in the general. - mig
[2018-11-07 10:46:42] - mig: I guess that's true. Maybe likability is an underrated quality. -Paul
[2018-11-07 10:44:44] - paul: The appeal of Biden is that he's genuinely likable, and I would wager stands a very strong chance of beating Trump. - mig
[2018-11-07 10:39:52] - But I totally don't get the appeal of Biden. Before Obama picked him as VP, wasn't he primarily known for his constant verbal gaffes and running for the presidential nomination and failing? -Paul
[2018-11-07 10:38:50] - I don't really get the appeal to Democrats of the unexciting old people lately. It's like they had an exciting young guy with Obama and decided, "we didn't like that, let's go with boring old people now". At least with Hillary I somewhat understood that people felt that it was her turn and wanted to see a female president... -Paul
[2018-11-07 10:28:43] - mig: Still early - Does a Castro throw their hat in the ring? Does Warren decide to make a go? Does Biden go for it? I think Biden would probably be able to win the primary but hard to say at this point. -Daniel
[2018-11-07 10:10:48] - daniel/a: in your minds what do you think the democrat field looks like for prez in 2020? - mig
[2018-11-07 09:33:27] - xpovos: how were elections this year? my mother joined your ranks yesterday (starting at the bottom i assume) in fairfax county. ~a
[2018-11-06 16:12:54] - Not as good as the Freedom Portfolio has done over the past 2 years or so.
-Paul[2018-11-06 16:00:47] - now. ~a
[2018-11-06 16:00:44] - paul: yeah i remember no. ~a
[2018-11-06 16:00:23] - understood. i guess if apoopyfart is your alternative, i guess 6% (per year?) is probably a good move. ~a
[2018-11-06 15:58:26] - a: A little old. I moved my TD Ameritrade to Merrill Edge because it gives me the Bank of America Platinum Honors rewards tier and part of that gives me 100 free trades a month, which is about 99 more than I need. Interestingly, I do have a Robin Hood account, but not much is in it now. -Paul
[2018-11-06 15:57:52] - i have most of my retirement funds invested with fidelity, some invested with vanguard, and then a lot of non-retirement funds in a wells fargo account which this broker manages. he's had a 6.1% ROR which seems OK to me, roughly in line with index funds and much more performant than my poopy fart stock selection - aaron
[2018-11-06 15:55:48] - aaron: not disagreeing with you, just giving my own opinion: this is a risky time to not invest in the stock market (because i believe *all* times are risky times to not invest in the stock market). also, index funds! ~a
[2018-11-06 15:48:24] - no i'm happy with my broker, i think he's right -- the market is just really crazy right now, it's been crazy since october and it will be crazy until tomorrow and it's a risky time to invest - aaron
[2018-11-06 15:44:40] - aaron: you need a new broker? sorry if this is old data, but here's what i've gleaned . . . paul, daniel, and i all use vanguard. paul and i use tdameritrade (scottrade was bought by tdameritrade. i've seriously considered moving to robinhood). you don't need to talk to anybody though. you just deposit money. ~a
[2018-11-06 15:33:45] - aaron: Maybe it's because I don't have a broker that I talk to, but that does seem very weird. He hasn't been accepting money for close to a month? Even though you want to put it in the market? That seems.... questionable? -Paul
[2018-11-06 15:32:27] - Index funds! -Daniel
[2018-11-06 15:30:01] - ... ...it has been a very unstable time for the stock market and i guess it demonstrates a measure of willpower and professionalism that he will not accept my money amidst that kind of instability? but his demeanor is sort of weird at times - aaron
[2018-11-06 15:28:47] - no, i'm dead serious. i first contacted my broker on october 19th, he has still accepted any of my money. i literally just got an e-mail from him at 2:58 pm (like ONE minute after my last post) where he said, "OMG apple total shit the bed last weekend and i have no idea what the fuck is up with this election, i will get in touch with you on wednesday MAYBE" - aaron
[2018-11-06 15:15:11] - aaron: like paul, i'm also curious what the fuck you're talking about. if it's a joke, i love it. ~a
[2018-11-06 15:11:13] - aaron: I can't tell if you're serious or quoting something.
It sounds vaguely like a quote and not an Aaron thing to say... -Paul[2018-11-06 15:10:30] - a: I don't have strong feelings about the sticker. My girls like getting the "future voter" sticker. I got one but am not wearing it. Some years I do. The sticker unfortunately often gets lumped in with selfies of people imploring everybody else to vote, but I don't hold it against the sticker.
-Paul[2018-11-06 15:09:20] - a: In my inbox, but you might be able to view it here: https://mailchi.mp/196e46f36632/welcome-to-diversity-438717?e=3cb4e1cddb -Paul
[2018-11-06 15:02:52] - paul: yes, i think there will be severe stock market swings regardless of what happens. i called my broker to invest a substantial amount of money, (on which he of course earns a commission), and he replied "i have no idea what the hell is going on with the market right now can you get back with me in a few weeks" - aaron
[2018-11-06 15:02:39] - a: I ... don't care? for or against what? Wearing the sticker? - mig
[2018-11-06 15:01:30] - mig/paul: what are your thoughts on the "i voted" sticker? for or against? ~a
[2018-11-06 15:01:10] - where is it. ~a
[2018-11-06 14:56:44] - Is anybody here subscribed to Nina's diversity newsletter? -Paul
[2018-11-06 14:44:50] - Anybody remember the wild stock market swings when Trump won in 2016? Think we'll see anything remotely similar this time around? I've seen articles talking about how the market might react if the Democrats take back both branches of Congress or if the Republicans keep both or if they split. Seems like a lot of guesswork all around. -Paul
[2018-11-06 13:58:29] - paul: reminding people that whether they voted is in the public record definitely does seem somewhat of a threat, especially given this new age of search and destroy doxing. - mig
[2018-11-06 13:55:06] - "never voted because her husband, before his death a decade ago, always worried that the couple would get called for jury duty and 'not be able to make ends meet.'" this part is interesting to me. not voting because of the worry of becoming a juror? that does seem lame actually. ~a
[2018-11-06 13:37:29] - Paul: Got to get those clicks! -Daniel
[2018-11-06 13:24:54] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/06/an-year-old-texas-woman-voted-first-time-then-she-died/ "An 82-year-old Texas woman voted for the first time. Then she died." Am I the only person who thinks that's a bit of an interesting way to phrase the headline? -Paul
[2018-11-05 17:14:35] - Daniel: I think I saw it last night during football, and while it felt a little more crass and blunt than other political ads (which is fitting given that it came from Trump), I didn't see how it was all that more offensive than other ads that I've seen. -Paul
[2018-11-05 16:44:49] - I haven't watched the ad so I don't have much of an opinion but I just saw that apparently Fox News pulled it as well. Which seems to not speak well of the ad if fox isn't willing to show it
-Daniel[2018-11-05 14:43:00] - paul: vote or die, motherfucker. ~a
[2018-11-05 14:23:50] - a: Right, but that seems like an aggressive ad to run. The tenor of it (from what I saw) seemed almost threatening. -Paul
[2018-11-05 14:17:13] - paul: whether or not you voted is public(ish?) record. ~a
[2018-11-05 14:15:42] - I swear I just saw a video ad that was warning me that my friends would be able to see my voting record and whether or not I voted and then flashed Tim Kaine's name. When I clicked on the ad it took me here: https://iwillvote.com/ -Paul
[2018-11-05 13:43:15] - paul: "I assume you are posting that as a note of pessimism?" neither pessimism nor optimism. my point is that 20% chance things can and do happen often. (ignoring the dependence of the variables temporarily) the odds either of two 20% chance things happening is 36%. iow, (ignoring dependence) there's roughly a 1/3 chance that either the republicans will win both houses or the democrats will win both houses. ~a
[2018-11-05 12:26:11] - paul: That's kind of what happened in Vermont. They tried to institute single payer found out it was unworkable economically and now there's a Republican governor. - mig
[2018-11-05 12:12:12] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/live-updates/midterms/midterm-election-updates/nbc-reverses-course-decides-to-stop-airing-controversial-trump-ad-on I don't know about this. I don't like the ad, but it doesn't seem beyond the pale of other political ads I've seen. This only seems to help Trump's claim that the media is biased. -Paul
[2018-11-05 12:10:40] - mig: Yeah, I wonder if it's a case of liberal governors reaching a bit too far and backlash to that. -Paul
[2018-11-05 12:06:22] - Hogan kind of came in at the right time. MD voters were I guess fed up with taxes from the O'Malley era? I remember the "rain tax" being a big issue at the time. - mig
[2018-11-05 11:54:55] - Oh, and I guess Bloomberg in NY and Christie and NJ are worth throwing in there too. -Paul
[2018-11-05 11:54:25] - mig: Yeah, it's weird to me how often places that are generally pretty liberal (ie, Mass., MD) have really popular Republican governors (Weld, Romney, Hogan). Even California elected the governator! Seems like there is some recipe for success for Republicans there. -Paul
[2018-11-05 11:51:19] - Hogan looks pretty safe. I'm a little surprised it's not closer given Ben Jealous's name recognition but I guess if most people consider you to have done a good job that goes a long way with voters. - mig
[2018-11-05 11:34:40] - a: Sounds about right. I assume you are posting that as a note of pessimism? -Paul
[2018-11-05 11:30:05] - paul: (rough order of magnitude, i'm not being super scientific here): chance of trump winning the presidency in 2016 (roughly 20%) == chance of the democrats winning the senate tomorrow (roughly 20%) == chance of republicans winning the house tomorrow (roughly 15%). ~a
[2018-11-05 10:29:29] - A split congress feels like the best "likely" outcome. Should help cement some gridlock to prevent either side from messing things up too badly. -Paul
[2018-11-05 10:28:38] - So... any thoughts on midterms tomorrow? Sounds like Republicans are expected to hold onto the Senate but Democrats take the House? Not sure about Governor's races, except I keep seeing ads for Larry Hogan.
-Paul[2018-11-02 17:16:18] - . . . virginia. how did i miss that one?
~a[2018-11-02 17:14:43] - xkcd 2067. i thought the joke in northern california was pretty funny. i otherwise found drawings in southern california, iowa, washington (both), texas, missouri . . . (and there are probably more since some of them are not visible below a certain zoom level) ~a
[2018-11-02 16:39:26] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/02/twitter-deleted-over-10000-accounts-seeking-to-discourage-voting.html Don't worry, my tweet is still up.
-Paul[2018-11-02 16:38:20] - exterminating liberals . . . the part that made me smile was: "most of the document veers into the absurd".
~a[2018-11-02 12:19:19] - paul: i mean, if there's one thing both sides of a two-party system will agree on it's "the government should have more power" and "the government should have more money," so it's a no-brainer they'd both be passing out sample ballots encouraging people to increase funding. i'd be surprised if any of those referendums ever failed - aaron
[2018-11-02 10:13:36] - a: I always vote no on the bond referendums and they always pass anyway. I feel like that's an analogy for the futility of voting for me.
-Paul[2018-11-02 10:13:04] - a: Right, I'm certainly not trying to defend our current system. It's far from ideal. I'm just saying that I don't think that encouraging politically disengaged people to vote would improve things. I think it makes a crummy system marginally worse. -Paul
[2018-11-02 10:07:05] - i also agree with aaron. as an aside, i just looked at my ballot and it has a bunch of loan (bond) increases on it. i'm like . . . hey taxes in arlington are crazy high, why are we also taking out loans? per capita city debt in my city is $4200. and they want to add $600 this year to that. but they already get at least $10,000/year from me in real-estate and property taxes. i'm so confused. i guess interest rates are low? ~a
[2018-11-02 10:04:39] - aaron: Agreed. It's not ideal at all, especially since we're in a representative democracy. I also imagine most candidates don't match very well with most voters. You might really care about climate change, and thus want to vote for candidate A who shares your view, but you might disagree with that candidate on everything else. -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:56:01] - i think an overwhelming majority of voters are in that position. "okay, i know which senator to vote for, but what's this random referendum? uhh, okay. well which way should i vote on it? ...really? oh okay, thanks." - aaron
[2018-11-02 09:55:05] - paul: that idea would actually work, if we had a separate elections for each referendum. but as it is i often show up to vote on something like a senate seat (which i care about) and then i have to also vote on whether or not the county should instate a new food tax to increase teacher salaries (which i don't care about) - aaron
[2018-11-02 09:45:49] - a: You joke (I assume), but I suggest one of the few ways we can measure this is by voter turnout. If somebody feels pretty passionately about something, maybe they turn out to vote. If somebody mostly doesn't care, I suspect they're less likely to turn out. -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:40:03] - paul: volume weighted. so . . . i guess measure everybody's water displacement? ~a
[2018-11-02 09:39:02] - a: I would suggest that how passionately somebody feels about an issue should count. Maybe a million men kinda don't care about abortion but think maybe it should be illegal, but 800k women feel really strongly that it needs to be legal. Why shouldn't that 800k count for more? -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:37:49] - a: And how much credence should we give the will of the people if it only represents 55%? Is it better to favor 55% who mostly don't care or a 45% who feel really passionate? -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:37:13] - a: Few issues are 99% to 1%, though. I think we're largely looking at issues where it's 55% to 45% or maybe even can flip depending on how the question is asked. That's another reason why I don't care much about the will of the people. How much thought has most of these people (especially the politically non-engaged) put into things? -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:36:08] - a: I never intentionally try to misrepresent somebody's views, I just accidentally do it a lot.
-Paul[2018-11-02 09:29:32] - paul: "if (hypothetically) the majority wanted that, does that mean Roe v Wade should be overturned?" it might depend on what the majority was. if the majority is 99%, then yeah, sure. anything less is up for debate. ~a
[2018-11-02 09:27:36] - paul: yeah, i'm glad you left me in parentheses . . . i'm not pro-will-of-the-people i don't think. i want the representative of the "people" to always "win" (so i probably agree with daniel here). but, the representative of the people can do what they think is right, even if (hopefully rarely) they disagree with the voters. ~a
[2018-11-02 09:26:37] - I mean, part of the big debate over Kavanaugh seemed to be that he would overturn Roe v Wade. Well, if (hypothetically) the majority wanted that, does that mean Roe v Wade should be overturned? -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:25:51] - But what if that wasn't the case? I suspect things like abortion and gay marriage are less popular worldwide than it is in the US. Or maybe we look more granular at Texas where I wouldn't be surprised if the majority was against abortion or gay marriage. I can understand wanting to know the will of the people, but why should we want that reflected in government power? -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:23:46] - Going back to the whole "will of the people" debate. I had one more thought on the way into work today. I think part of the reason why Daniel (and Adrian?) put a lot of stock in the will of the people is because you (maybe correctly) associate the will of the people with your own ideals. -Paul
[2018-11-02 09:01:55] - ok, understood. ~a
[2018-11-01 17:11:03] - a: So I'm actually okay with the low volume spike skewing things. Maybe there was a reason that I want to look at. -Paul
[2018-11-01 17:10:38] - a: *Shrug* Maybe. I'm just looking for a starting point. Since I tend to hold onto things for a long time, and I have 20+ positions, it can sometimes be hard to tell if/when one of my positions goes from being up 170% to up 110%, and I want an easy way to identify those. I'm not planning on buying solely on that data point. I just want to identify outliers to look at. -Paul
[2018-11-01 17:00:12] - "recency" or "volume" should be determining "importance". not "top". ~a
[2018-11-01 16:59:31] - "I want to know the drop from that top to now" you think you do, but you don't. here's why: the "top" is a particular time that has no real importance: the price at the top is no more "important" than the time last week or last month. "somewhere in the middle" nah, if it's a weighted-average (volume or time based), it'll be near the top. ~a
[2018-11-01 16:55:27] - volume weighted is even better, because if the short-term spike had high volume, then it'll be weighted higher. ~a
[2018-11-01 16:54:45] - a: Maybe? But not in the way I want. Let's say the past 52 weeks looks like a perfect bell curve. I want to know the drop from that top to now, not the drop from the average (somewhere in the middle) to now. -Paul
[2018-11-01 16:54:21] - more correctly because it'll smooth out (but also not completely ignore) short-term spikes. ~a
[2018-11-01 16:52:44] - paul: it tells you "which of [your] positions have gone down a lot lately" more correctly than looking at the 52 week high. ~a
[2018-11-01 16:29:19] - a: Eh, depends on what you are trying to measure. I want a good starting point for seeing which of my positions have gone down a lot lately, and drop from 52 week high does that. I don't see the use for 52 week average. What useful information does that present to me? -Paul
[2018-11-01 15:51:48] - measuring from the "high" or the "low" is worthless. unless you have some really good reason to pick a specific point, you shouldn't pick a specific point: you should average out shit. you should volume-weight shit. you should rolling-average shit. smooth it out? ~a
[2018-11-01 15:49:39] - yes, you can definitely do this in "my portfolio". . . . here's what i don't like though: 52-week-high is super dumb. you should be looking at 52-week-"average" . . . like a moving average, or a weighted average, or a volume weighted average, or something like that. 52-week-high is a purely emotional value that is useless information compared to what the change from an "average" value can tell you. ~a
[2018-11-01 15:40:22] - a: "so you can sort on it and shit" That's what I want. I want to see which of my positions have dropped the most to see if I want to add some. -Paul
[2018-11-01 14:38:30] - "ticker summary page" . . . it's something you can trivially calculate, so it really only makes sense to have it as a column in the "my portfolio" right? so you can sort on it and shit. ~a
[2018-11-01 14:37:28] - paul: "my portfolio". ~a
[2018-11-01 14:06:26] - a: Btw, I took a look at the original 2017 stock market challenge, and I'm narrowing the gap with you. 62% to 107%. -Paul
[2018-11-01 14:05:52] - a: Is that on some portfolio page for you? Or a ticker summary page? -Paul
[2018-11-01 13:47:14] - paul: 52-wk high chg %: gbtc: -83% (yeah, this is because of markup). amd: -42%. ~a
[2018-11-01 13:44:21] - paul: i definitely have a column in yahoo finance called "52-wk high chg %". i'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're talking about. ~a
[2018-11-01 13:17:39] - I wish there was a way to easily see which of my positions have dropped the most from their 52 week high. Like, I made a big deal about how much Amazon has fallen, but some of my positions have been falling so slowly over a longer period that it snuck up on me. No idea BOFI (now AX) is down around 33% from its 52 week high. -Paul
[2018-11-01 12:06:35] - a: My best guess is that represents the chance that the government will intervene or shareholders will vote against it. Also, I don't know when the deal is supposed to close, so there's the time value of money too. -Paul
[2018-11-01 11:11:31] - or maybe that there's a chance that the sale won't proceed? ~a
[2018-11-01 11:07:06] - paul: "Gurkie does" good for her. and she probably holds way more than the 20 shares that i do. "the price isn't quite at the buyout price yet". so what does the market know that we don't? market cap = 30b. buyout price = 34b. is it that ~10% of the buyout price will go to somewhere other than the common stock? ~a
[2018-11-01 10:48:28] - "I don't think it affects her past the amount she is set to make off her stock" uhhh, what? why not? i've worked for a company that got bought out, so i don't understand why you would think things wouldn't change. ~a
[2018-11-01 10:46:15] - https://www.mfamfunds.com/insights/the-motley-fool-small-cap-growth-etf-ticker-mfms/?source-MC TMF is releasing another ETF. -Paul
[2018-11-01 10:44:16] - a: I don't think it affects her past the amount she is set to make off her stock. -Paul
[2018-11-01 10:43:55] - a: Heh, Gurkie and I talked about it. I didn't own any IBM or RHT, so that's why I didn't mention it here. Gurkie does, though, and I believe she bought some more the next day since the price isn't quite at the buyout price yet. -Paul
[2018-11-01 10:42:58] - a: Right, but "most people" is a pretty wide range. I am saying it would be something like 1% that might do it. If I recall, you and Daniel thought it was much larger. I'm not sure what your point is about redlining, as I think we're getting off topic. It's also a pretty large term that encompasses a lot. -Paul
[2018-11-01 10:42:40] - paul: why haven't we talked about the rht sale? i didn't realize that on monday that i was $1k richer. also . . . should i hold throughout the sale? or sell some now? will this affect gurkie at all? ~a
[2018-11-01 10:28:25] - paul: "most people" most people won't refuse service? no, but i already agreed to that. i said a few would refuse service. not zero of them though, right? but, i also said non-restaurants are probably a different story. i said redlining would probably continue to be a big thing. and discrimination in employment. mostly because those are harder to keep track of. ~a
[2018-11-01 10:22:35] - Sure, 60 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago it might've been different, but I'm saying right now I don't think laws against discrimination change much behavior outside of fringe cases like this bakery one. -Paul
[2018-11-01 10:21:32] - a: I think the answer is, like I think you were implying, is that it would be horribly bad business. And that's kinda my point. I think even if everybody is secretly racist or whatever, most people right now aren't going to refuse to serve groups of customers even if it were legal because it's bad business. -Paul
[2018-11-01 10:20:16] - a: Advertising it. My point is that the only thing that the law seems to change right now is that if somebody non-white enters the racist restaurant, they have to serve them. So a racist can still totally advertise that they're racist and get whatever benefit they want from that. So why don't they? -Paul
[2018-11-01 09:43:52] - for example redlining and hiring certain racial groups is much harder to track, so people would do that if it were legal (and still do even though it isn't). ~a
[2018-11-01 09:41:26] - i don't know if there would be too many restaurants that would ban racial groups if given the opportunity (a few maybe, but not too many). non-restaurants are probably a different story. [i don't think that means non-restaurants aren't a different story] ~a
[2018-11-01 09:39:08] - advertising it or doing it? ~a
[2018-11-01 09:30:05] - a: Okay, so if the law was removed, why would they suddenly start doing it, then, if it's bad for business? -Paul
[2018-11-01 09:25:49] - same reason current businesses that don't want to serve gay people don't advertise "we don't (want to or otherwise) serve gay people". it's bad for business of non-fellow-racists? ~a
[2018-10-31 16:08:38] - a: That's why I wonder if there is this huge group of secret racists who just want to not serve blacks or gays or jews. Is there anything stopping them from going full Westboro baptist church and advertising their beliefs while still technically following the law and serving all people? -Paul
[2018-10-31 16:07:03] - a: They were going to get protested regardless of the law (and maybe get a bump from the business of fellow racists), but this way they still get paid by the (presumably few?) non-whites who come. -Paul
[2018-10-31 16:04:58] - a: I think I mentioned this before, but I have a hypothetical question for you. Assuming there is somebody out there who wants to serve only white people. Why wouldn't they advertise something like, "The law says we have to serve non-whites, and we will, but we don't have to like it"? -Paul
[2018-10-31 14:30:04] - mig: i'm guessing it's far more than you might think. ~a
[2018-10-31 14:26:05] - daniel: you have to take into account how much of that discrimination was government mandated. Businesses discriminated against minorities in part because it was the law of the land in southern states to do so. I don't know how many businesses would willingly discriminate absent any laws, but I'm guess it's far less than you all might think. - mig
[2018-10-31 11:19:04] - As a somewhat random aside there was a segment on NPR awhile back where apparently stormfront got into big debates about how to define what counted as "white'. So defining these personal characteristics and who counts and who doesn't I think will always be tricky. -Daniel
[2018-10-31 11:12:05] - "but what gender would you say transgender people are born as?" i dunno. ~a
[2018-10-31 11:11:53] - paul: the boy scouts are allowing girls. maybe the girl scouts will eventually allow boys, i dunno. ~a
[2018-10-31 10:58:09] - a: Also, random aside, but what gender would you say transgender people are born as? -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:57:44] - a: Sure. That's an important distinction for you. I don't really know if it is for me. Girl scouts allowing in boys, then? -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:50:21] - you aren't born a "gun owner"
~a[2018-10-31 10:49:16] - Daniel: Right, and this goes back to what we were talking about a few months ago. I think that if we removed all of those laws, it would be low single digits of percentages that would blatantly and openly discriminate. You and Adrian seemed to think it would be much higher. -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:48:42] - a description by david gerard. no idea who that guy is, but he wrote a (self-published) book about crypto-currencies on amazon, so that's something. ~a
[2018-10-31 10:48:23] - a: I think freedom of association protects people who don't want to serve blacks or gays just like it should protect a Jew who doesn't want to serve a Nazi or a barista who doesn't want to serve a gun owner or whatever. -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:47:19] - a: "most of what you've said breaks down if you call the couple "black" instead of "gay"." Why? Is it because one is more distasteful than the other? To be clear, I'm not saying either is good, but much like how I believe freedom of speech protects white nationalists as much as it protects the civil rights movement... -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:46:18] - Paul: Its hard to say what the proportions of denied service would be if we removed all these restrictions but the reason these laws and things exist is because there are real historical examples of rampant systemic service denial across pretty much the entire spectrum of services to black people in the south. So its not like these rules came out of nowhere. -Daniel
[2018-10-31 10:44:31] - "Initiative Q claims two trillion coins will be issued, which will ultimately be worth $US1 each for a total pool of $US2 trillion." i don't like that it's centrally controlled. it's like a fed bank but much worse. if it was like a digital currency, where it wasn't centrally distributed and controlled, then i'd be down with it. based on some googling, i'm not sure if this is even a (centrally controlled) crypto-token. no thanks. ~a
[2018-10-31 10:40:23] - paul: most of what you've said breaks down if you call the couple "black" instead of "gay". i assume you're ok with a restaurant/bakery disallowing black people from service (based on what you've said about free association), but i'm not. ~a
[2018-10-31 10:39:48] - a: It would be one thing if every grocery store and restaurant in America refused to sell food to gays or blacks or whoever. But what's the absolute worst case scenario here? Maybe a doctor refuses to operate on somebody in an emergency? I think we can have a much more interesting discussion if something like that comes up. -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:37:59] - a: From a smaller and more specific perspective, I just don't see what is gained in this bakery situation. Presumably, the gay couple has dozens of other bakeries they could get their wedding cake from. Presumably they wouldn't actually want one from the bakery that doesn't want to make one. So what is gained by forcing them? -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:36:57] - a: From a larger perspective, I just believe in the right of association. People should be free to determine who they want to hang out with and do business with on whatever basis they want. -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:35:47] - a: I'm perfectly happy to keep trying to convince each other or find the ultimate truth, but I worry that I sometimes overstay my welcome or keep beating a dead horse for longer than others want to.
-Paul[2018-10-31 10:32:58] - the reason would have to be more complex than "i don't like what you look like" or "i don't like who you are"? ~a
[2018-10-31 10:31:06] - you're probably right (that we won't make any progress). if it matters, i feel this is a grey-area / borderline-case. there are other times where i think forcing someone to make a non-commodity that they don't want to make could be considered awkward. like . . . people in some fields be allowed to decide what work they accept, but their reasons for not accepting the work has to be like . . . a valid reason? i'm not sure totally. ~a
[2018-10-31 10:28:44] - paul: success!
~a[2018-10-31 10:25:51] - Since I doubt we'll make any progress on this going forward, let me try changing the topic: Has anybody heard of Initiative Q? I'm trying to figure out if it's a scam or just a well-intentioned effort that will likely amount to nothing. -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:20:19] - "opposed to straight marriage (would that make them bigoted assholes?)" just opposed? or if they were refusing service at a restaurant or bakery? i guess yeah, i'd probably call them bigoted assholes in the latter case. ~a
[2018-10-31 10:11:56] - a: Not knowing the gay couple's belief's, I can't really come up with an equal and opposite message. I think it's a lot closer than your example, though, unless you know the gay couple is opposed to straight marriage (would that make them bigoted assholes?). -Paul
[2018-10-31 10:05:37] - paul: "gays must die" and "happy wedding" (do people actually put words on a wedding cake?) aren't equal and opposite messages. maybe if a gay person worked at a bakery and had to make a cake for a straight wedding, yeah he should probably make that cake since he's in the business and is accepting customers. ~a
[2018-10-31 09:57:07] - a: Hmmm, I guess that's fair. Although it's worth noting that the bakery case wasn't about serving homosexuals (they were perfectly willing to), it was about forcing them to make a specific cake (gay wedding cake), so I think my golden rule point stands. Would the gay couple want to be forced to make a "gays must die" cake? -Paul
[2018-10-31 08:48:14] - i mean jesus christ, serving homosexuals in a bakery is like the fucking epitome of the golden rule. ~a
[2018-10-31 08:47:11] - paul: "People were brought up to think paying taxes is normal" was that always the case? there was a time when we thought it was ok to treat homosexuals and african americans like scum. one day we'll treat them like equals. we'll all serve them in our restaurants and bakeries. people will have been brought up to think that serving everybody regardless of their race/etc is normal and to obey the golden rule and whatnot. ~a
[2018-10-30 20:54:09] - It's hard for me to reconcile the whole "Resistance" movement and the warnings of oncoming fascism and marching in the streets and "Not my president" and everything else with this deference for the will of the people. -Paul
[2018-10-30 20:51:52] - Daniel: So if the will of the people is that slavery is okay or that Nazis are great (Godwin's rule!) or even lesser things like immigrants suck or homosexuality is bad.... I don't think that kind of thing needs to be encouraged or elevated. -Paul
[2018-10-30 20:50:57] - Daniel: Right, and I understand that to a certain point, but I feel like that just gives too much deference to democracy and the will of the people. I don't think there's anything special or magical about the will of the people that should be honored. Will of the people isn't too different from mob rule. -Paul
[2018-10-30 20:48:29] - a: I suppose I see your point, but I was more thinking of things that people weren't inclined to do already and are suddenly forced to do. People were brought up to think paying taxes is normal and to obey the golden rule and whatnot. -Paul
[2018-10-30 13:28:47] - paul: "I can't think of any aspect of life where the end result is improved by forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do" oh i can. at first i'm like "paying taxes" but then i realized there's much less controversial shit. how about just "respecting people's property rights". and "respecting people's personal rights". "getting a drivers license". you can't think of any aspect of life? ~a
[2018-10-30 12:29:04] - In my head closer to the will of the people the better. If the people will something bad then we need to talk / educate / whatever those people or decide we don't agree with the will of the people and find somewhere we do. I think thats my underlying principle for voting. -Daniel
[2018-10-30 12:05:21] - a: Like, if I really didn't want to play One Night Ultimate Werewolf but a group needed one extra player, I might politely half-ass it, but if I was forced to play, that's how you guarantee that I'll do the most obnoxious thing possible. -Paul
[2018-10-30 12:03:37] - a: I can't think of any aspect of life where the end result is improved by forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do. All it seems to do is breed resentment and make the person act even worse than they might otherwise. -Paul
[2018-10-30 12:02:31] - a: It's the same thing with the gay wedding cake. Regardless of the legality, I really don't think I would want to have my wedding cake made by a baker who I was forcing to bake the cake and who I knew didn't want to. -Paul
[2018-10-30 12:01:43] - a: I guess I really don't understand the compulsion to force people to do something they don't want to do. You really think it would be a positive in any way to force somebody who doesn't want to vote to vote? -Paul
[2018-10-30 10:22:30] - mig: i don't think that counts as compelled speech. or else lots of other things would count. like filing your taxes. basically any sort of filing that is required by law would be compelled speech? maybe it would be compelled speech if they told you who you needed to vote for. or that you couldn't leave your vote blank. ~a
[2018-10-30 10:05:33] - a: I'm pretty sure mandatory voting would run into constitutional problems (compelled speech). - mig
[2018-10-30 10:03:31] - paul: "voting was good no matter who they voted for" nah i'd prefer to say "i'd prefer you vote, regardless who you vote for" that way i'm not bordering something that is dumb: "you're doing a good thing, regardless who you vote for". ~a
[2018-10-29 23:33:20] - Daniel: I don't know how that's relevant, though. White nationalists can do both, or neither. Otherwise I guess I want Trump to be president because I prefer that to him running over people with cars.
-Paul[2018-10-29 22:16:36] - Voting is the civilized engine of change. If white nationalists want to organize a voting block I think I would rather that than running over people with cars. -Daniel
[2018-10-29 20:29:40] - a: You seemed to indicate that somebody voting was good no matter who they voted for and that you wanted to encourage bigoted assholes to vote. Now apparently it's not laudable if done primarily to white nationalists? -Paul
[2018-10-29 20:28:19] - a: "people are free to do what they want" I'm not sure anybody has been arguing otherwise (except, I guess, if said person wants to not make a gay wedding cake). But your most recent statement about what is and is not laudable seems to contradict what you said before... -Paul
[2018-10-29 20:24:06] - a: How is it a misrepresentation? I guess I left off Australia, but other than that the most striking thing on the map to me is how common it is in South America and how North Korea really stands out. -Paul
[2018-10-29 17:28:11] - "Seems like a slippery slope" nah. people are free to do what they want. if they want to encourage only certain groups to vote, that's totally allowed. just not "laudable"? by me? ~a
[2018-10-29 17:27:03] - "Does it at all concern you that it seems primarily popular in South America (history of dictatorships and unstable democracies) and North Korea?" no. what you said is a misrepresentation of the facts. also, we wouldn't even be the first stable democracy on that list. ~a
[2018-10-29 16:45:14] - a: "that action wouldn't be even-handed" Seems like a slippery slope. How about a PSA featuring all prominent left-wing actors? Or one which only talks about left wing issues? -Paul
[2018-10-29 16:44:24] - a: Oof, wow. Not sure anything could get me to write in "FU" for every option faster than that... if not skip entirely depending on the penalty. Does it at all concern you that it seems primarily popular in South America (history of dictatorships and unstable democracies) and North Korea? -Paul
[2018-10-29 16:40:09] - "Would you find their actions to be laudable?" i guess less so. not because i disagree with the charlottesville marchers, but because that action wouldn't be even-handed? worded differently, i would consider the idea of a fine or fee for not voting. ~a
[2018-10-29 15:36:17] - https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/marijuana-law/marijuana-law-keyed-to-mikos/the-regulation-of-marijuana-suppliers-in-prohibited-regimes/safe-streets-alliance Activist lawyers. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-29 14:35:01] - a: "I know this isn't necessarily your position, and I'm not trying to say it is". It was a separate point. Let me ask you this, then: Somebody is walking around during the Charlottesville march trying to get the white nationalists registered to vote. Would you find their actions to be laudable? If you found out that person worked for your company, you wouldn't be at all uncomfortable? -Paul
[2018-10-29 14:26:52] - "scrub certain political opinions from the world" am i doing that? ~a
[2018-10-29 14:26:17] - paul: "I don't think it's putting words in your mouth to say that you want to encourage bigoted assholes to vote. Doesn't that sound weird?" nope. ~a
[2018-10-29 14:12:04] - a: I don't think so. I'm the same way. I know certain ones like Amazon because it's notable ($2k not too long ago), and I remember $4.20 for KushCo for obvious reasons, but most others I have no clue at all. Share price is fairly meaningless to me. -Paul
[2018-10-29 14:11:04] - a: (I know this isn't necessarily your position, and I'm not trying to say it is): I think it's weird that we live in a world where some people are trying to completely scrub certain political opinions from the world in terms of getting people fired and banned from social media and everything else, but we're also trying to encourage those people to influence the government. -Paul
[2018-10-29 14:09:36] - a: That's a perfect example of what confuses me. You think of those people as "bigoted assholes" (your words). I don't think it's putting words in your mouth to say that you want to encourage bigoted assholes to vote. Doesn't that sound weird? -Paul
[2018-10-29 14:08:31] - paul: is it weird that i have no idea what the share price of my holdings are? i never look at the share price because i pay more attention to the % change since purchase, and the yearly or monthly % change, % change from the weighted average, etc. for the same reason, i get mad when they report "the dow is down thirteen points today" instead of "the dow is down 1% today" because the latter is actually useful information on its own. ~a
[2018-10-29 14:02:06] - paul: for one thing, i would word it differently. i encourage them to vote, and the law forces them to not be bigoted assholes. secondly, i encourage them to vote, so maybe they won't be forced to make gay wedding cakes in the future. ~a
[2018-10-29 14:02:05] - I'm not proposing weaponizing voting in any way like trying to trick certain people into not voting or discourage them in any way. I just don't see why we should be actively encouraging it. -Paul
[2018-10-29 14:00:58] - Xpovos: Right, I guess there's a few different issues. (1) Is whether a well-informed and educated vote is "better" than an uninformed and uneducated vote and (2) whether a vote that disagree with my politics is desireable or not. -Paul
[2018-10-29 13:49:44] - FWIW on the political stuff, I'd rather have 20% participation and good votes, even if they're against what I want, than 100% turnout from uninformed votes, even when I know, statistically speaking, there's no difference. I'm in favor of making voting more restrictive. Still a right of citizens, or perhaps "voting citizens" but limited in membership. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-29 13:46:25] - Paul: When I heard AMZN was done big (Friday? -7% or so?) that sounded like a great buying opportunity to me. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-29 13:43:28] - a: So (and I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing your position) if somebody thinks that gay marriage is wrong and should be illegal, you would encourage them to vote while also forcing them to make a gay wedding cake? Doesn't that seem kinda bi-polar? -Paul
[2018-10-29 13:34:18] - paul: "it almost doesn't matter to you who people vote for, it matters more that they vote" "i like the sentiment". it does matter to me who people vote for. however regardless of who people want to vote for, i'd prefer they vote. there's a pretty big difference between those two. ~a
prev <-> next