prev <-> next
[2019-01-04 11:27:11] - paul: i love censorship resistance in bitcoin. even if you ignore all the other benefits, it's a great tool for that alone. wikileaks had their bank accounts frozen. i can only assume snowden had his frozen as well. ~a
[2019-01-04 11:24:37] - paul: but even the introduction in the 2008 whitepaper is primarily focused on there being no third party in the way of "willing parties". ~a
[2019-01-04 11:23:55] - paul: censorship resistance always shows up on charts like this one or this one. ~a
[2019-01-04 11:03:04] - https://bitcoinist.com/patreon-mastercard-ban-bitcoin/ Is it possible that, of all things, avoiding censorship might be the best practical use case for cryptocurrencies? -Paul
[2019-01-04 11:02:23] - a: I've been working on some python scripts to pull data from https://www.alphavantage.co/ with no clear idea of where to go from there. I've been doing it more as an excuse to learn some python than because it's better than the spreadsheets you set up. Maybe I should do both? -Paul
[2019-01-04 10:17:33] - paul: where are you tracking the 2019 competition? ~a
[2019-01-03 16:33:26] - paul: i guess we know you're very healthy ~a
[2019-01-03 13:47:12] - Daniel: That's why the long term mindset is so important to my investing strategy. It takes away one more variable where I could be wrong. I don't necessarily need to know WHEN a company will be good so much as IF a company will be good. -Paul
[2019-01-03 13:46:17] - Daniel: And yeah, I'll be wrong about some of them (maybe LeBron leaves LA or Harden suffers a torn achilles), but I like my chances better than predicting whether each of those teams is going to win their next game. -Paul
[2019-01-03 13:44:53] - Daniel: Again, even our prediction of them making the playoffs can be wrong every once in awhile. We're not perfect. But I think the ability to take a long term view makes it easier to make predictions and gives us an advantage. I'm pretty confident in being able to predict with decent accuracy which NBA teams will make the playoffs this year and the next 5 (Warriors, Lakers, Rockets, 76ers, Celtics)... -Paul
[2019-01-03 13:42:36] - Daniel: Whereas the house is betting on the outcome of each game. Can they beat the Warriors on the road? Can they beat the Raptors at home with Paul out due to injury? The 76ers on the road on the second night of a back-to-back? -Paul
[2019-01-03 13:41:24] - Daniel: Actually, here's a good analogy that I like: Sports betting where the "house" us betting on the outcome of each individual game but we're basically allowed to bet on season long outcomes. Let's take the Rockets. We're allowed to look at the team and say, "I don't know if they're going to win their next game or not, but I think they'll make the playoffs". -Paul
[2019-01-03 13:20:00] - Daniel: Sure. They'll never be a perfect analogy. Maybe the best is sports gambling against the spread, but even then I think there are important differences because in this case I do think that the "house" has some handicaps which make beating the spread easier. -Paul
[2019-01-03 09:50:16] - Paul: Maybe daily fantasy? I'm not sure totally enough to be 100% in the analogy though. Its different from a draft because lots of people can choose the same company and the value of the company is baked in and their is more randomness and their performance in the "season" depends on people's belief in them during the season. -Daniel
[2019-01-03 09:04:24] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/03/bristol-myers-to-buy-celgene-in-a-74-billion-deal.html I'm glad I won the 2018 challenge, otherwise I would've been griping about the timing of this deal. -Paul
[2019-01-02 23:47:38] - correct. public addresses should be relatively private, because when people have them they can defeat the privacy features of bitcoin. i.e. if everyone knows your pseudonym, it doesn't make a very good pseudonym. i sent you that money btw. ~a
[2019-01-02 23:40:03] - a: So I could keep the public address in something like Google keep and it wouldn't defeat the purpose of a cold wallet? I can confirm 1FFTnq is correct. -Paul
[2019-01-02 13:09:34] - paul: since your public key is public(ish) information, you can save it to your computer. i have the public keys for all of my paper-wallets saved on my computer so i can reference them when i'm away from home. ~a
[2019-01-02 13:06:25] - Daniel: That's fair. In this case maybe it is more akin to something like the NFL draft? We all know there are some prospects who are better than others, but there's no clear established way to definitively rank them. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:25:49] - Paul: Sure I guess its just that everyone is trying to decide what is Aces vs 27o. So you have your method but others have theirs and no one agrees what are aces. -Daniel
[2019-01-02 12:21:26] - Daniel: In every other area of life I can think of we seem to accept that there are variations in performance and that we can predict with some success who and what will win more often than not. Doesn't mean we're always right, but just because we're sometimes wrong I don't see why that means we have to accept that it's completely random and unpredictable. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:18:37] - Daniel: So, yeah, all the companies in the Freedom Portfolio I like, and I think they will outperform in the long run, but I also realize it is silly to think that I will be perfect and always be right. Some will not do well, just like sometimes Bell holds out or you get rivered by a flush or the Warriors strangely lose to the Pistons. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:16:29] - Daniel: Or poker, I like my chances with pocket Queens or Ace Jack suited, but it obviously won't win all the time. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:16:04] - Daniel: Same with Fantasy Football. I would draft players like Gurley and Barkley early, and think most years that works out, but wouldn't at all be surprised if somebody comes out of nowhere to outproduce them. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:14:39] - Daniel: Um... same way as anything else? I guess I don't understand why it has to be 0% or 100% certainty. I think the Warriors will win a lot of NBA games this year, and if I were in Vegas, I might even put money on them winning games, but I would never be 100% certain that they win any specific game. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:10:36] - Paul: On a different approach it sounds similar to just leveraged index funds? You seem to be saying that your performance will swing the same way as the market just with bigger swings. Isn't that what those leveraged index funds are also doing? -Daniel
[2019-01-02 12:09:57] - Paul: If you can't understand why a company goes up or down though how do you choose? I mean I guess I know how you choose - you wrote it all up - but how do you have confidence in it when clearly it can all go out the window? Because over the long term you don't think it will go out the window? -Daniel
[2019-01-02 12:06:58] - Daniel: Also, and the numbers get a little wonky now, but if you go back to a few years ago when I started tracking things more closely, I'm still beating the market pretty handily thanks to big outperformance a year or two ago. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:05:42] - Daniel: I mean, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that when we hit a downturn, I'll almost certainly lose to the market during that time because my approach is overall more risky, meaning I lose more during bad times but hopefully make up for it (and then some) during up times. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:04:48] - Paul: Short term vs long term is fair. -Daniel
[2019-01-02 12:03:49] - Daniel: Again, I would analogize it to poker. I can't tell you if Phil Helmuth is going to win his next poker hand or gain money over the next hour or even ultimately win whatever tournament he is in, but I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that 5+ years down the line that he and Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey will probably have more bracelets than most others. -Paul
[2019-01-02 12:01:43] - Daniel: And I wouldn't even feel that confident saying where the prices of individual companies might be 5+ years from now. However, if you let me pick a few dozen companies and ask me where they'll be relative to the market years down the line, I like the chances that I pick enough big winners to offset my losers. -Paul
[2019-01-02 11:59:15] - Daniel: "Doesn't that run counter to your notion that you can beat the market?" Not at all, at least in my mind. I believe that I can beat the market over the long term. "isn't it inherently just a guessing game then?" Over the short term and with small sample sizes I kinda agree. It would be a complete guess for me to tell you where the price of Amazon or Mercado Libre will be tomorrow... -Paul
[2019-01-02 11:38:46] - Differing thoughts in my head currently: Congrats Paul on the stock market challenge. The ones we have done so far have not been kind to me. Segue into your recent post on PvtM - You seem to be at a loss on several of your stocks performance. Doesn't that run counter to your notion that you can beat the market? If one isn't able to understand / predict the market isn't it inherently just a guessing game then? -Daniel
[2019-01-02 10:24:49] - a: I don't have my cold wallet on me, so I would have to wait until I got home to confirm, sorry. -Paul
[2019-01-02 10:16:48] - (regarding the title: not counting graduate school, kindergarten, or preschool). ~a
[2019-01-02 10:10:51] - paul: yes i can send it directly to your cold wallet. i'd just like to confirm: 1FFTnq..., yes? ~a
[2019-01-02 09:52:15] - a: I guess I'll take bitcoin. I forget, you can send it directly to my cold wallet, right? -Paul
[2019-01-02 09:51:19] - Man, looks like I should've sold some of that Tesla position.
-Paul[2019-01-02 09:00:35] - paul: for the 20 dollas, do you want venmo or bitcoin? if so, please send me your details. ~a
[2019-01-01 14:40:53] - a: I agree that the next year or so for Tesla might be rough. I even considered selling some of my position (with the intention of buying more later if it does drop like I expect). They pulled forward a lot of demand and the tax credit is getting chopped and they have no more backlog. Not sure if international can pick up the slack with the trade war going on. -Paul
[2019-01-01 14:39:46] - a: Ah, okay. It fell into the spam folder. I marked it as not spam so hopefully it goes straight to inbox now. Thanks. Was it GBTC that split? I forgot about that. It looks like we're going to have a lot of overlap among contestants this year. Maybe next year we do a draft.
-Paul[2019-01-01 14:36:12] - i also mentioned that we did have one split. in 2017. ~a
[2019-01-01 14:35:34] - yes. i emailed you. paulvsthemarket (gmail). i sent you "amzn, nflx, nvda, amd, sq". ~a
[2019-01-01 10:41:29] - a: Happy new year. Quick question: Where did you submit your fantasy investing entry? I don't see it... -Paul
[2019-01-01 01:10:47] - happy new year, friends. ~a
[2018-12-31 16:31:32] - yep. my reign of: 1 consecutive win, has been toppled. i guess i won't be able to win 4 in a row now, i should just give up on 2019. ~a
[2018-12-31 16:24:32] - a: Is it official? Did I overthrow the king?
-Paul[2018-12-31 16:24:09] - congrats, paul. ~a
[2018-12-31 16:07:07] - hell, we've swapped places (1st and 2nd place) at least three times today alone. ~a
[2018-12-31 16:06:00] - we decided to use whatever google finance and yahoo finance used.
but yeah, we are close enough that dividends would affect the results. ~a[2018-12-31 15:59:06] - a: Oh, nice. I thought we had decided to count it on the payout date and I thought the payout date was in January. -Paul
[2018-12-31 15:30:42] - paul: you have two dividends listed for disney: july 6th, and december 7th. ~a
[2018-12-31 11:41:15] - a: I can't believe that on the last day of 2018 that we're both so close in the stock market challenge considering where things were just last week. This could come down to stupid Disney having only one dividend this year.
-Paul[2018-12-31 09:58:33] - a: They list some of her remarks in the article I posted and there is a link to another CNN article that talks more about them: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/24/politics/mccaskill-exit-interview/index.html -Paul
[2018-12-30 10:17:27] - which remarks? you link to where she's talking about her remarks but not the remarks themselves. i guess she was talking about "crazy democrats". i'd say she probably shouldn't have referred to "crazy democrats" in almost any context, but i haven't read her original remarks. ~a
[2018-12-30 09:14:18] - But at that same time, I feel like these kinds of things are so common in politics these days where if there is any possible way to interpret something as offensive or as an insult, then that's the way people are going to run with it. Can you imagine if an old male Republican said this? -Paul
[2018-12-30 09:12:20] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/29/politics/ocasio-cortez-mccaskill-criticism-rhetoric/index.html Curious what people think of this "controversy" (and I use that term at least somewhat ironically). If you read McCaskill's remarks, it doesn't seem like she intended any offense and was using terms like "thing" and "shiny object" just as terms of speech... -Paul
[2018-12-28 17:20:28] - aaron: that was a compelling video. having actors embedded in the crowd was genius. also trip-advisor's response was . . . interesting? i'm not sure if their response was good or bad, but it was smart probably. i mean, what else could they say? ~a
[2018-12-28 15:14:48] - a: maybe trump was employing the more poetic definition of loose; a verb meaning to set free or release?
- aaron[2018-12-28 15:13:48] - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-top-rated-restaurant-on-tripadvisor i made my shed the top-rated restaurant on tripadvisor - aaron
[2018-12-28 15:06:06] - when did the internet collectively forget how to spell the word "lose"? i see it spelled as "loose" like a couple times per week. just noticed it in a presidential tweet today. ~a
[2018-12-28 11:17:27] - "this is macaulay culkin" "actually i prefer to go by my middle name; macaulay culkin culkin" - aaron
[2018-12-28 11:17:03] - a: ha ha!! so many creative options with a name like "macaulay macaulay culkin culkin". he could announce it with an echo, like a monster truck announcer. or he could just go by just one name, like cher and madonna - aaron
[2018-12-28 09:57:35] - "keep the change you filthy animal", the mixed drink edition. one fact, and one piece of news: fun fact, fun news. ~a
[2018-12-28 09:38:44] - aaron: That issue is back? I remember reading about it in a much more niche setting a while ago. Maybe I can find it. I'll search later today. -- Xpovos
[2018-12-28 09:25:07] - aaron: september. i'm sad that it's over, but i'm happy they didn't drag it out too long. ~a
[2018-12-28 09:12:56] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/style/tattoos-video-games.html athletes don't own their tattoos, that's a problem for video game developers - aaorn
[2018-12-27 12:06:47] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/fairfax-board-chair-bulova-to-retire-launching-new-political-era-in-vas-largest-jurisdiction/2018/12/05/4 Bulova is retiring. Who wants to get into politics?
-Paul[2018-12-27 09:16:58] - a: no, but i've been meaning to! when did it air? - aaron
[2018-12-26 14:04:12] - a: Jesus, and now we're close again. My 5 stock portfolio is up 4.5% right now. That's crazy! Amazon is up 7%. -Paul
[2018-12-22 18:31:22] - aaron: did you see the last episode of adventure time? i'm so very sad that series is over. ~a
[2018-12-21 15:43:04] - yah that's fine. ~a
[2018-12-21 15:21:15] - a: FYI, I might not follow our guidelines for Fantasy Investing 2019 in terms of the stock market challenge with regards to repeating picks, if that's okay with you. I'm considering it a bit of a fresh start. -Paul
[2018-12-21 14:56:45] - mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, yes. and any current-trump-supporter will remind you that mexico will be paying for the wall. ~a
[2018-12-21 14:51:18] - So... anybody want to take bets on who wins this shutdown showdown over wall funding? I feel like the end result is going to be some godawful compromise which combines the worst of both worlds. Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
-Paul[2018-12-21 13:16:00] - Maybe there's some merit to it. Honestly though, opposition among republicans was already softening with the exception of hardline law and order folks like Tom Cotton, though it's certainly true Trump's support might have hastened that process. - mig
[2018-12-21 12:47:04] - mig: The "only Nixon can go to China" comment was more about other Republicans than about Trump. Basically, I was saying that if Obama proposed supporting these reforms he might get support from Democrats but opposition from Republicans, but since Trump (a Republican) proposed them, he can get enough Republican support to get it passed. -Paul
[2018-12-21 12:24:30] - Generally that's very dangerous, but sometimes can produce a positive result. - mig
[2018-12-21 12:24:01] - paul: I'm not sure that it's really a "Only Nixon can go to China" but more of that Trump is a very malleable on just about any subject when he gets the right whispers in his ear. - mig
[2018-12-21 12:02:49] - a: I'm mostly with paul on this one. It is something we should pay attention to and make some efforts to guard against, but perspective needs to be maintained on the reality of how much impact this "interference" actually causes in elections. It just isn't worth the hyperventilating and hand wringing that's going on right now. - mig
[2018-12-21 11:18:32] - mig: Maybe it's a "Only Nixon can go to China" thing where Obama couldn't have gotten it past a Republican congress by Trump can somehow get it past a mixed congress? Still, like you said, Obama never seemed to push for it much and he did have a democratic congress early in his administration. -Paul
[2018-12-21 11:17:22] - mig: And for as horrible as Trump has been when it comes to stuff he's said about law and order and criminal justice reform and whatnot, his administration just might have a more meaningful long term positive impact than Obama's did. -Paul
[2018-12-21 11:15:25] - mig: Commutations at the very end is nice, but sure would've been nice for it to be something bigger and more meaningful. I'm making kinda a Kmele-ish point here that yeah, Trump is maybe the biggest jerk imaginable and and Obama seemed like a really thoughtful and cool guy, but at some point shouldn't results matter too? -Paul
[2018-12-21 10:58:49] - paul: To be fair, Obama did at least start doing what he could with his own power (commutations), and getting the criminal justice reform through congress isn't something he has that much control over. OTOH he didn't do much to really stump for getting those bills through though. - mig
[2018-12-21 10:49:36] - a: Because I have seen no evidence that they've done anything impactful. Sure, in an ideal world they wouldn't be doing anything at all but the worst that I've seen is reports that Russia might've spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads. -Paul
[2018-12-21 10:46:54] - "I also largely unconcerned about Russian meddling in our election". what why not? ~a
[2018-12-21 10:44:52] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html Or this (again unrelated) story about how Democrats used "Russian tactics" (whatever that means) in recent elections? This one I don't care too much about, but I also largely unconcerned about Russian meddling in our election. -Paul
[2018-12-21 10:43:18] - a: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/19/van_jones_prison_reform_bill_a_christmas_miracle.html Oh! That reminds me (despite being entirely off-topic): Do you all have any thoughts about the First Step act and how this kind of criminal justice reform is getting passed by Trump (of all people) when Obama kinda did nothing on the subject? -Paul
[2018-12-21 10:36:09] - "The Democrats now own the shutdown!" on twitter just now (10:07). ~a
[2018-12-21 10:02:54] - (uk transportation secretary) "This is an entirely new type of threat" lol, no it isn't. this attack (cheap-er drones, not the ones used in wartime), has been discussed all over the place since like 2011ish. ~a
[2018-12-21 09:59:11] - i did hear about that. saw this meme on reddit and looked up some info on it. seems weird. i mean i guess they probably had an agenda, but what was it? awareness of some sort? ~a
[2018-12-21 09:58:12] - a: Well, wherever it came from, it sounds like an official price to me so it should stay. gg.
-Paul[2018-12-21 09:57:51] - aaron: I read some headlines about it. -Paul
[2018-12-21 09:56:32] - did you guys hear about the drone thing at gatwick airport in the UK? where i guess about 40-50 drones were flown around an airport to keep commercial flights grounded for a day? - aaron
[2018-12-21 09:54:19] - paul: doubt it. the ticker price was in the five digits (10930 like aaron said). i have no idea what 10930 came from. maybe this is their ticker value over seas? ~a
[2018-12-21 09:28:59] - a: The Mazor deal closed yesterday, I think. It's possible that you are seeing data for the company that bought them? Medtronic? -Paul
[2018-12-20 16:22:35] - . . . but i guess it was announced in september looking at the graph. ~a
[2018-12-20 16:21:50] - oh wow it's a *very* recent purchase. ~a
[2018-12-20 16:20:39] - hmm, ok maybe not. they were trading on tuesday. wtf is up with mzor? ~a
[2018-12-20 16:19:57] - paul: remind me, mzor is the one that got bought, right? 58.23 is that the correct final price? i hard-coded that into the spreadsheet. ~a
[2018-12-20 16:18:06] -
~a[2018-12-20 15:27:29] - i hope you invested in that stock in real life, too! - aaron
[2018-12-20 15:27:14] - yow, if we end the stock market challenge right now, paul appears to be a clear winner... his mzor stock skyrocketed from 52 to 10930 giving him a 21082% return on investment, that's crazy - aaron
[2018-12-20 14:53:19] - It looks like this list is shying away from more politically charged stuff. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings could have arguably been a cultural moment, but it was more ugly political tribalism on its face. - mig
[2018-12-20 14:32:52] - On their list, I knew about a bunch. I didn't know about the Banksy prank, but I loved it. At the risk of sounding racist (again) the predominance of moments of some significance for people of color seems to be magnified here in a way that seems outsized. That could just be my innate whiteness though. -- Xpovos
[2018-12-20 14:27:42] - xpovos: kinda . . . most people don't pay much attention to the news though.. it was (only) a supreme court confirmation. i know i didn't pay any attention to the clarence thomas confirmation in 91 even though it was also fairly contentious. but i knew about the gulf war, the same year. ~a
[2018-12-20 14:22:04] - Paul: I haven't clicked through yet, but--Kavanaugh wasn't on the list? That's definitely a cultural moment of definition by my books. -- Xpovos
[2018-12-20 13:58:45] - a: Most talked about in the moment? Or longest legacy? I'm surprised things like Kavanaugh and Infinity War weren't on there. -Paul
[2018-12-20 13:49:55] - Paul: I think its possible that you just don't care as much about fashion or art? Or that their list was more leaning in those directions than you (we) are. -Daniel
[2018-12-20 13:40:54] - the fact that you know about half of them, means you're (at least half) in agreement with cnn. what would you pick as the "most talked about" stuff? ~a
[2018-12-20 13:33:00] - https://www.cnn.com/style/article/cultural-moments-that-defined-2018/index.html I like to think that I am at least marginally aware of what is going on in the world around me, and I didn't even know half of these happened, let alone that they were "most talked about". Am I that out of touch or is CNN? -Paul
[2018-12-20 13:19:15] - -12% yikes i though i was having a bad day. ~a
[2018-12-20 13:00:44] - https://citronresearch.com/twitter-has-become-the-harvey-weinstein-of-social-media/ Look, I think shorts provide a valuable service to the market and this report doesn't bother me as a long term believer in Twitter, but did they really have to release this report a week before our contest ends!? -Paul
[2018-12-20 12:11:54] - it is, yes. but . . . that's the case with market orders too. your market order could execute at very close to $0. ~a
[2018-12-20 12:09:02] - a: That seems like an incredibly dangerous thing to test.
-Paul[2018-12-20 12:01:25] - paul: "for some reason" usually means its a non-normal market (not nasdaq, not nyse, etc) or overseas market where you don't have a good idea of how large the sum of the waiting limit orders are. when selling you can pick a limit order price lower than the market price. it won't fill lower than a market order would have anyways. i.e. i think a limit sell order of $0 is basically a market order? don't quote me on that though. ~a
[2018-12-20 11:25:17] - God I hate having to do limit orders. I just wanted to sell my shares at whatever the market price was at the time I hit "submit" but no, Merrill says I need to use a limit order for some reason so I set the limit to the current price... and then in the few seconds afterwards the price drops and now my order is sitting there unfulfilled.. taunting me. -Paul
[2018-12-20 11:08:01] - i'm remembering more cool things we get from lack of infrastructure. so i guess i should mention that is not an exhaustive list. ~a
[2018-12-20 10:29:00] - paul: yes you're right. lack of infrastructure means more traffic congestion, but fewer pedestrians (and bicyclists). and worse emissions. and more waste. everybody wins. ~a
[2018-12-20 10:27:05] - twice as worse in dc, oops. ~a
[2018-12-20 10:26:50] - paul/daniel: looks like i was looking at the numbers incorrectly. dc is worse than nova per capita. pedestrian deaths: virginia: 13/million/year, fairfax county: 16/million/year, dc: 40/million/year. ~a
[2018-12-20 10:09:58] - a: But wouldn't the lack of infrastructure also mean fewer cyclists? -Paul
[2018-12-20 10:09:45] - Daniel: Ah, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse things. I mentioned NOVA because of this comment: " are you implying pedestrian deaths aren't a problem in nova? " -Paul
[2018-12-20 10:06:24] - daniel: i did say virginia because that's what i had data for. i don't think i can easily get statistics on nova. ~a
[2018-12-20 10:04:55] - a: Do you mean NOVA or all of VA? Those seem like different things. Just since Paul said NOVA but you just said Virginia. -Daniel
[2018-12-20 10:03:42] - one word. infrastructure. biking to your house is so ridiculous.
~a[2018-12-20 09:59:31] - a: That's interesting. Per capita NOVA is worse than DC? I wonder why that is. People less familiar/comfortable/used to dealing with pedestrians? -Paul
[2018-12-20 09:58:27] - paul: virginia in 2017 saw: pedestrians killed: 114, pedestrians seriously injured: 447. virginia, is, of course, much bigger, and even includes some cities of its own. but i don't think virginia is "safer" than dc. per capita, for pedestrians it's worse in virginia. ~a
[2018-12-20 09:48:55] - . . . are you implying pedestrian deaths aren't a problem in nova? ~a
[2018-12-20 09:43:19] - this is why i avoid cars.
~a[2018-12-20 09:43:02] - a: But yeah, we're both pretty easily beating the market still. I wish the same could be said for the Freedom Portfolio. Man, I picked a craptacular time to start measuring.
-Paul[2018-12-20 09:42:09] - a: This is why I avoid cities.
-Paul[2018-12-20 09:01:54] - oof i was riding through THIS intersection (pennsylvania and 7th NW) an hour before they were killed. it happened around 9, i went through around 8. i remember thinking that dc traffic is aggressive even late at night. ~a
[2018-12-20 08:52:28] - it's a race to the bottom, but we are both beating the market. ~a
[2018-12-19 17:03:37] - a: Oof, feels like a race to the bottom in the stock market challenge now. Weren't we both at around 7% not too long ago? Which one of us can suck less in the next two weeks?
-Paul[2018-12-19 14:19:34] - maybe i should make you a video-walkthrough of my office. ~a
[2018-12-19 14:18:14] - daniel: imac still exists. and mac mini still exists. they're much more rare, though. ~a
[2018-12-19 13:50:29] - a: No thats fair, I was thinking a mac desktop machine but I'm not even sure if those exist anymore which is why maybe I haven't seen one in forever. I've seen macbooks in airports and starbucks and stuff. But still not even a macbook in a professional env. -Daniel
[2018-12-19 13:33:18] - daniel: god, i can't tell if you're joking. maybe we're having trouble with definitions? a macbook is a mac, right? you've been to a starbucks that didn't have a dozen macbooks in it? ~a
[2018-12-19 13:28:22] - a: I think the last time I saw a mac out in the world was in college? Other than the apple store. Linux boxes I've seen but actual mac's nope. -Daniel
[2018-12-19 13:11:52] - also audrey's office too. and my sister's. most people in a professional setting i've bumped into have been on macs. ~a
[2018-12-19 13:11:07] - "I haven't seen a mac in a professional setting.... ever?" wow my workplace would blow your mind. there are something like 60 people on my floor. 40+ of them are on macs. ~a
[2018-12-19 13:07:05] - a: Yeah no mac's here either. People that are on linux are just on some actual linux distro. I haven't seen a mac in a professional setting.... ever? -Daniel
[2018-12-19 13:03:13] - a: nobody I know is on mac. - mig
[2018-12-19 10:43:52] - mig: that's windows. zero mac users? wow. so assuming you're counting more than 16 people, you're answering 0%?
~a[2018-12-19 10:40:15] - a: question may turn on technicalities. linux development is sort of 100%, but almost everyone does it through a windows OS using a virtualbox linux VM. Me and I think one other person are the only ones fully on a pure-blooded linux OS. - mig
[2018-12-19 10:39:06] - CALLED IT ~a
[2018-12-19 10:34:48] - a: Glad I didn't make that bet since I appear to be in the lead now.
-Paul[2018-12-19 10:00:21] - i'll give my answer too. 100%! windows users are hard to find on my floor, and it's definitely closer to 0% than 25%. i'm on one project of 15 people, and only one runs windows. in summary, xpovos=0, daniel=25, paul=50, aaron/mig=?, adrian=100. if aaron or mig answer 75, we'll have the full spectrum! ~a
[2018-12-18 17:49:31] - None of them are developing on those OSes at all, though. In my non-message board social circle, I know only a handful of developers. Of them, maybe a third, so closest to 25% are developing for something other than Windows. And most of that third is mobile development. -- Xpovos
[2018-12-18 17:48:26] - a: I don't work in development, so my number is not going to be useful. First, everyone uses Windows, it's on our work computers. Second, at home, I know at least two use Apple products (MacOS not just iOS), but that tends to be supplemental. -- Xpovos
[2018-12-18 17:39:59] - a: I think most are still windows but there are people here who set up a VM for new joiners that loads up a Mint Linux instance with tools already installed so for my immediate teammates its probably like 75%? But much lower like 15% outside my team. -Daniel
[2018-12-18 16:19:51] - a: Maybe? I dunno, I'm just estimating. I figure something like 10% might use linux or something like 30% might use macs? Of those that use macs the technical folks are probably in the minority, but maybe not. -Paul
[2018-12-18 16:08:57] - paul: haha yeah interesting. so basically most of the mac users that are coworkers are the non-technical people? i guess that's still a win in my book. ~a
[2018-12-18 15:56:24] - a: All coworkers or coworkers working in tech? I'll go ahead and pick 25%, but if we're talking all.... then maybe it's 50%. -Paul
[2018-12-18 15:53:36] - paul: yeah i hear you. i don't expect it to be a normal bell curve, but i also agree it doesn't have a real good reason to be very skewed. ~a
[2018-12-18 15:52:56] - paul/aaron/mig/xpovos/daniel: . . . how many of your coworkers use not-windows? i feel like if i asked this question 10 or 15 years ago, everybody, myself included, would have said ~0%? i feel like today, a lot more people are developing on macs. i even meet coworkers of coworkers (etc) that are developing on macs. or ubuntu. lot of arch users at work now too. pick one please? 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%! ~a
[2018-12-18 15:50:10] - a: Sure, I understand the distribution can be skewed, but do you have any reason to suspect that it wouldn't be a normal bell curve? I know the stock market challenges aren't necessarily representative, but we've both outperformed the market by more than just 1%. It's more like beating it by 10%. -Paul
[2018-12-18 15:13:20] - anyways, i'm not even sure if the 75% part is correct . . .
~a[2018-12-18 15:05:11] - paul: made-up-scenario. obviously this distribution was picked just to make a point, but just because i think there's a 75% chance i can beat the market doesn't mean it makes sense to try to beat the market: 25% chance making *say* 4%/year (retire in 21 years), 75% making 11%/year (retire in 10 years). or index funds 10%/year (retire in 11 years). in this scenario, obviously i should pick the index funds. ~a
[2018-12-18 15:03:48] - a: Sure, but would you play Russian roulette if winning meant getting lots of money and losing meant getting slightly less money (and not a hole in the head)? -Paul
[2018-12-18 15:02:13] - irresponsible?
no, i don't think it's irresponsible. 75% chance means i'd have better odds playing russian roulette. russian roulette is 83%. ~a[2018-12-18 14:35:37] - a: Like I would peg my certainty that I can beat the market at close to 75% and I use that as justification for why I am comfortable with such a large percentage of my retirement funds in individual stocks. With 75% certainty, isn't it almost irresponsible to have such a low percentage in individual stocks? -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:34:30] - a: That's so bizarre to me that you are 75% sure you can beat the market but only put 5% of your retirement funds in individual stocks... at the same time you are advocating putting your emergency fund into the stock market. -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:28:58] - if i thought it was a 50/50, i wouldn't be putting 5% of my money into individual funds. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:27:48] - paul: yep. roughly. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:26:51] - a: Wait, you're 75% sure you can beat the index in the future? -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:24:12] - in the future. i mean, obviously i can do it in the past. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:23:55] - paul: i totally agree. and i'm only like 75% sure i can even do that much. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:23:06] - a: " the active managers (and warren buffet) are spending 40+ hours per week studying this shit" Yeah, but you don't really have to beat them, right? You just have to beat the index. -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:21:44] - a: Heh, the big worry for me now is the "for sale" part of our bet. Could we move to transportation as a service before prices on fully autonomous vehicles get low enough so that there's technically never a car for sale that is fully autonomous? -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:19:42] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynch Also, while I agree that 10 years isn't a terribly long period of time, that's often what we have to go on. Peter Lynch became a legendary investor based on what looks like a 13 year record at Fidelity. -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:19:07] - paul: i agree with the important differences . . . mostly. but i don't think any of that matters. the active managers (and warren buffet) are spending 40+ hours per week studying this shit, and i'd be lying if i said i spent more than 40 hours per *year* studying it. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:17:48] - paul: 2025-12-18: you're looking pretty good for our bet made in 2015, 3 years ago today. you still haven't won yet, since all of the tesla shit still falls into the "level 2" category. but considering what i've seen, it's more likely you will win than i will. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:15:15] - a: Anyway, my intention wasn't to try to prove anything, but just try to provide more perspective on what I don't think it's fair to say that because active fund managers don't beat the market, then individuals can't. There are important differences. -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:09:51] - yeah, i guess you're right. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:09:21] - a: Yeah, but there's no way to quantify the difference between a "good" stock and a "safe" stock, right? We could look at things like P/E ratios or market caps but those things are all potentially flawed as measurements. -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:08:07] - paul: "you'll keep missing out on out-performance" which is exactly my argument for the stock-emergency-fund, hah. ~a
[2018-12-18 14:07:12] - paul: "Pages of memos from the majority of fund managers where they admit to sacrificing long term gains for short term gains?" their decisions are all public. someone could watch their decisions. find them selling a "good" stock for a "safe" stock? unless that proof doesn't exist, then finding it might be hard.
of course i'm not going to say that absence of proof is proof of absence. but you know, i *am* an atheist after all. ~a[2018-12-18 14:03:46] - a: And you'll keep missing out on outperformance, as proven by our stock market challenges.
-Paul[2018-12-18 14:03:23] - a: But what would that proof look like? I can't even imagine what could of "proof" could exist. Pages of memos from the majority of fund managers where they admit to sacrificing long term gains for short term gains? -Paul
[2018-12-18 14:02:09] - until then i'm gonna keep putting ~95% of my money into index funds
~a[2018-12-18 14:00:08] - "Do you need a quote from a fund manager saying they only care about the short term or something?" no, but i need some proof that their decisions (even only the ones we can study) can be roughly correlated to possible (alleged?) short-term goals. ~a
[2018-12-18 13:58:31] - paul: yes, that would be my comeback. thank you
~a[2018-12-18 13:57:26] - a: Older investor? Warren Buffet?
12-20 guys doing this? The analysts at the Motley Fool? Somehow I don't think that if I could find 12-20 people who have beaten the market you would accept that as any kind of indicator either. My guess is your comeback would be: "But how many are losing to the market?" -Paul[2018-12-18 13:55:56] - a: I thought there was a good section in there explaining why fund managers only care about the short term. I'm not sure what kind of citation you are looking for. Do you need a quote from a fund manager saying they only care about the short term or something? -Paul
[2018-12-18 13:54:16] - a: Retirement funds only? I'm roughly around a third in individual stocks. Maybe a bit higher. -Paul
[2018-12-18 13:52:23] - paul: he's been doing really well for "the past decade". wtf 2018-10=2008? everything else was ridiculous because of this. jesus find me an older investor, please: 1y older right? he's only been tracking since 2013? since 2013: 21%/year (him) vs 18%/year (s&p500) for one (potentially lucky) person? that seems rediculously unimpressive not because 3%/year is too low, but because he's just one guy. we need to look at 12-20 guys doing this. ~a
[2018-12-18 13:52:18] - paul: (paraphrased) "fund managers only care about the short term. you can (and should) focus on the long term". citation needed? who says fund managers only care about the short term? i understand there are probably some potential bad biases and bad incentives, but has anybody looked at real numbers? ~a
[2018-12-18 13:52:14] - paul: there's nothing weird about what he's talking about. 100% of his retirement fund is in index funds. 5% of my investments are in individual investments. he says try this with 1%, which sounds fine. i don't trust myself with more than 5% because i'm not studying financial distributions. i try to look at the p/e, that dosen't seem to really help me. you are doing this with like 25%ish, right? 25% seems high to me. ~a
[2018-12-18 13:52:03] - paul: ok i listened to the whole thing (up to 53:00). ~a
[2018-12-18 13:49:30] - a: Also, for what it's worth, there were a few questions that I personally would've had different answers for, but he had a lot more numbers and confidence backing up his claims.
-Paul[2018-12-18 13:48:46] - a: Ah, okay. I didn't notice it so much with the guest, but I do remember the hosts repeating a lot of stuff almost like it sounded like they were defensive. I could understand the guest wanting to repeat that he was a supporter of index funds so as not to turn off anybody, but the hosts shouldn't have to do that I wouldn't think. -Paul
[2018-12-18 13:44:53] - both. ~a
[2018-12-18 13:41:49] - a: Who keeps on repeating themselves? The hosts? -Paul
[2018-12-18 13:31:50] - paul: i've been listening (i'm at 30:00 so far). i have a lot of responses (i'm queuing my responses up). so far i'll start off with: they keep saying the same shit over and over again. i wish they didn't keep repeating themselves, it would take much less time to listen. ~a
[2018-12-18 12:37:52] - Thought maybe it would mean more coming from skeptical podcast hosts who are self-proclaimed big index fund people. -Paul
[2018-12-18 12:37:26] - https://www.choosefi.com/075-unfair-advantage-brian-feroldi/ I haven't finished listening to this yet, but I am at least 3/4s of the way through and thought this could be helpful here to explain why I think that individuals investing in individual stocks isn't the same thing as actively managed funds in terms of being unable to beat the market. -Paul
[2018-12-18 12:36:04] - Hmmm, isn't that where it has to go in order to get overturned? I'm admittedly not clear on the details, but I thought the only court at this point that could overturn it was the Supreme Court. -Paul
[2018-12-18 12:31:23] - mig: i hear you. except . . . npr and whatnot think it's getting to the supreme court. i guess they could be wrong though. ~a
[2018-12-18 12:07:05] - so pretty much all the handwringing or celebration going on right now is rather premature. - mig
[2018-12-18 11:31:54] - a: I'm not getting too excited by the ruling because it's honestly really shaky. My sense is that chances are very high it gets slapped down on appeal, and I'm not sure there are even the 4 votes among the justices to grant cert to proceed to get heard by SCOTUS. And *even* if it got that far, Roberts has proven he's very committed to keeping the law on the books by just about any means necessary. - mig
[2018-12-18 10:38:47] - a: Funny you mention that. I found an api which I can hit to get intraday numbers for stocks but I have been struggling because really all I want is like the open or close numbers on specific days and it's annoying digging through all that data. -Paul
[2018-12-18 10:35:31] - paul . . . haha, yeah, you're right. that's pretty hard to track. i'd have to notice it was close, then do some pretty-hard-math. most websites won't give you intra-day histories as a csv. and even if they did, yeah that would still be work. ~a
[2018-12-18 10:32:28] - a: Oof, who is going to track that? I definitely don't check it that often. -Paul
[2018-12-18 10:20:53] - paul: no way, we're still way too close for comfort. it's a 2% game, and that can easily change in an hour. if you want to make a prop-bet: i'll take the side that we will change order (if only for a few hours) before december 31st. ~a
[2018-12-18 09:52:23] - a: Never say never with the market volatility, but it looks like you're finally starting to pull away. I can hope for a Twitter rebound or another crash in pot stocks, but not sure there are any other potential triggers that could cause a swing in the challenge. -Paul
[2018-12-18 09:32:46] - a: Doesn't seem like the strongest argument, but the original justification also seemed a bit weak IMHO. -Paul
[2018-12-18 09:32:24] - a: As I understand it, it was ruled unconstitutional based on the way it was ruled constitutional. Roberts and the SCOTUS said that the fee for people who didn't have coverage is fine because they considered it a tax. Well, that fee/tax is now gone, and so Texas ruled that a tax that doesn't raise revenue can't be a tax and so the entire ACA is now void? -Paul
[2018-12-17 19:39:53] - a: Daily Wire will pick up most of the talent it seems, but yeah, it sucks. Particularly the timing. It was never my go-to, but I enjoyed reading it for a reasonably intelligent center-right opinion. -- Xpovos
[2018-12-17 18:44:28] - a: aca wasn’t originally ruled constitutional under the purview of interstate commerce, but rather as part of congress’s power to tax things. - mig
[2018-12-17 17:40:44] - second topic, the weekly standard? that sucks, man. ~a
[2018-12-17 17:40:09] - hey, don't mean to kill the sports-talk, but it looks like everybody has left for the day? can we talk about the ACA getting struck down in texas? specifically i want to know what's unconstitutional about the ACA. i know the supreme court already said it would be unconstitutional without the individual mandate. but why? doesn't interstate commerce let congress regulate the shit out of us? (which sucks, but it's in the constitution) ~a
[2018-12-17 17:06:58] - mig: I don't know that Wall would want to join Lebron's team yet. I think he still thinks of himself in the team alpha category. Even though that hasn't quite panned out for him. -Daniel
[2018-12-17 16:15:11] - daniel: would Wall want to play w/ Lebron? I would forsee similar issues to Kyrie if that pairing happened. - mig
[2018-12-17 15:37:09] - Daniel: Yeah, but the Rockets will probably turn things around. Wizards seemed doomed to the basement. -Paul
[2018-12-17 15:08:33] - Paul: Rockets by far for me. Its early still so they might turn it around but I've been super disappointed in their season so far after how last season went. -Daniel
[2018-12-17 15:04:29] - Daniel: Who's the bigger disappointment? Rockets or Wizards? Wizards are the worse team, but Rockets had higher expectations. -Paul
[2018-12-17 14:58:37] - mig: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/a6glro/gambosuns_sending_ariza_to_washington_for_oubre/ebulq0t/ -Daniel
[2018-12-17 13:49:05] - mig: Ah, so could be clearing out cap space for next year, then, assuming Oubre and Rivers had longer contracts. I'll be honest, NBA contracts sometimes confuse me in terms of guaranteed money and restricted vs unrestricted free agents and whatever else. -Paul
[2018-12-17 13:43:54] - ariza is one year, 15 mil from what I've read. - mig
[2018-12-17 13:02:21] - mig: I think you nailed it. Ernie Grunfeld probably figures his job is on the line if they have to dismantle the team and rebuild, and so instead of writing the season off like they probably should, they're instead making a desperate push for the playoffs. I'm not sure what the contract situations are, though. It's possible Ariza has a shorter contract? -Paul
[2018-12-17 12:58:22] - daniel/paul: can either of you explain the recent wizards trade to me? What are they getting out of it aside from maybe barely making the playoffs and being stuck in mediocrity limbo? - mig
[2018-12-17 09:43:54] - a: Thanks! Now if you could just "fix" Celgene's performance, that would be great. -Paul
[2018-12-16 14:27:52] - stock market challenge . . . i added in some dividends. everybody went up a percent or two. ~a
[2018-12-15 21:09:57] - who here has a nintendo switch? - mig
[2018-12-14 14:32:55] - hey, it used to be -2%! every little bit of movement helps - aaron
[2018-12-14 11:35:35] - aaron: Not sure if more -4% returns is going to help.
-Paul[2018-12-14 11:22:41] - hey i'm still in this! oppenheimer holdings is outperforming all my other stocks by a wide margin, i just need it to rally a little harder - aaron
[2018-12-14 10:26:08] - a: I can't remember. Are you offering that? Who counts as remaining players in the tournament? Does Aaron count?
-Paul[2018-12-13 19:00:40] - paul: what's that thing in poker where you split the winnings with the people remaining in the tournament? ~a
[2018-12-13 18:59:45] - still neck and neck. 7.4% to 7.3%! ~a
[2018-12-13 17:06:07] - I tried changing the time zone from UTC-4 to "New York" but I haven't seen any difference yet. Wondering if it's a daylight saving time thing. -Paul
[2018-12-13 16:46:52] - daniel/paul: you both have replies there if you want them. ~a
[2018-12-13 16:45:53] - hmmm, time-zone can't be it, unless maybe it's the time-zone of the person who posted it (since daniel is in a different time-zone i guess that could be it). which makes no fucking sense: why would i ever want to read times in the time-zone of the person who posted it (without even telling me the time zone it was posted in?!)? ~a
[2018-12-13 15:40:56] - daniel:
i jsut replied to a different comment with the necessary context. ~a[2018-12-13 15:40:31] - paul: it's probably a time-zone thing. ~a
[2018-12-13 15:40:28] - a: I GET THE LAST WORD EVERY TIME NOW! MWHAHAHAHAHA! -Daniel
[2018-12-13 15:40:03] - paul: my 4:32pm message is waiting for moderation. ~a
[2018-12-13 15:39:08] - a: That's because I disabled your commenting.
j/k. It is interesting that there's a limited depth. Also, did anybody else notice that comments seem to be coming in from the future? -Paul[2018-12-13 15:35:40] - there's no "reply" link on high-depth comments. ~a
[2018-12-13 15:34:15] - paul/daniel: well we found the anwser. it won't let me reply past a certain depth. ~a
[2018-12-13 15:27:36] - Daniel: I was wondering the same thing. -Paul
[2018-12-13 15:25:30] - paul: It will be interesting if we continue to reply to each other if it keeps shrinking the horizontal space the comment is allowed to occupy. I wonder if there a minimum or if we will end up with long vertical paragraphs. -Daniel
[2018-12-13 15:24:13] - paul: i moved back to the site. sorry. i replied to you and daniel there. ~a
[2018-12-13 15:19:53] - Daniel: Keep me informed about any difficulty commenting. I want to make it as painless as possible but I also want to keep spam out. I didn't set up any of this moderation stuff. I came on by default so I can look into loosening it if it is a problem. -Paul
[2018-12-13 15:19:20] - I would argue for Paul's site, but I understand it's easier here.
-Paul[2018-12-13 15:18:40] - daniel: there is fine, sorry. i just an error in your post, so i wasn't sure if i was supposed to point it out there or not. ~a
prev <-> next