prev <-> next
[2019-02-04 11:20:01] - a: So yeah, maybe the trade-off for not killing people for their religion is that we fire people for their beliefs and while that's not good, it's still better than before. -Paul
[2019-02-04 11:18:12] - a: So yeah, some smaller things are getting worse, but the big picture is still improving. -Paul
[2019-02-04 11:17:53] - a: You could be right that maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture of how things have improved. I remember one thing I read that really struck home was somebody telling libertarians to stop complaining about things like big government and over-regulation because, while that's bad, women can now vote and we also no longer have things like segregation. -Paul
[2019-02-04 11:17:19] - paul: i think what is happening is you're getting older. so things that you didn't notice when you were a kid were still happening: (infrequently, and in small pockets) people losing their jobs over their political beliefs. that has always been a thing. ~a
[2019-02-04 11:13:34] - paul: "It seems like we're getting less and less tolerant of political disagreement" . . . i'm not sure i agree with this
. seriously though, i think wars are less bloody because we are less quick to kill someone at the drop of a hat about stuff we would consider silly to kill about today (i.e. what religion someone else is). ~a[2019-02-04 11:01:00] - mig: I think I've mentioned this before, but this is something that has been worrying me. It seems like we're getting less and less tolerant of political disagreement and there are more and more topics where disagreement is considered an offense which makes you unemployable. -Paul
[2019-02-04 10:59:48] - The context of all this seems to stem from some argument over whether TJHSST should change its name because of Jefferson's history of owning slaves or something. - mig
[2019-02-04 10:44:49] - a: there aren't. but there is at least one person who seems to think disagreeing with his political opinions means that you are one. - mig
[2019-02-04 10:41:49] - mig: are there white supremacists in the underground group? that's a little surprising. i felt like that underground group seemed fairly liberal. ~a
[2019-02-04 10:25:09] - mig: Got it. That makes more sense. That is... sadly not surprising. I feel like we've been heading that direction for years now. -Paul
[2019-02-04 10:23:40] - along w/ i guess screenshots of fb group conversations. - mig
[2019-02-04 10:21:30] - paul: It seemed to go along the lines of "hey you have a white supremacist working for you and you should consider if you want that type of person in your employ." - mig
[2019-02-04 10:19:14] - mig: I'm a little confused? So if I disagreed with their political views, that person would post an anonymous google review of my employer mentioning me? Or just basically review my employer lower for employing me? -Paul
[2019-02-04 10:01:20] - I don't know which of you guys are in the TJ alumni underground FB group, but looks like somebody there got booted after admitting he that posts anonymous google reviews to other members employers for basically showing disagreement with his "correct" political opinions. Kind of disturbing to see that play out. - mig
[2019-02-03 08:47:42] - Oh, jeez, I had it messed up. It was Gillespie that Northam beat, not Stewart. That changes things. -Paul
[2019-02-02 22:25:42] - a: we moved from tysons to reston. - mig
[2019-02-02 20:25:28] - Paul: Loyalty to wokeness might be more revolting than partisan tribalism, though. mig
[2019-02-02 12:46:58] - I'm also surprised by the number of Democrats calling for Northam to resign. Thought party loyalty would protect him more. I guess wokeness > tribalism. -Paul
[2019-02-02 12:44:34] - Maybe Stewart's team didn't think anything was wrong with it?
-Paul[2019-02-02 12:17:29] - mig/aaron: did your office move to tyson's corner? i had a dream about that maybe. was anyone interested in having a lunch meeting or happy hour? xpovos still works near arlington? and paul now works in sterling. averaging all of those together (sorry daniel) gets tyson's corner unless i'm wrong about aaron and mig. ~a
[2019-02-02 09:21:37] - I'm more impressed by the near universal demands from D think groups demanding his resignation. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-02 09:21:04] - mig: Obviously the fact that it didn't come out is odd. Astounding, even. It couldn't have been buried, so the R oppo-research team just sucked? Thought it wouldn't resonate? This coming out right after the abortion bill debacle indicates (to me) that it's a political hit. Maybe even from a more moderate D who might have known about it but doesn't like abortion. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-02 08:56:38] - i am at a loss how this didn't come out during the election season. A college yearbook shouldn't have been that hard to pick up. - mig
[2019-02-02 00:06:57] - paul: I think the thing that might have set it over the top might have been that interesting nickname that Northam was given in his yearbook. - mig
[2019-02-01 22:49:43] - Although I saw a pretty interesting point in a twitter thread I read: When did blackface become always completely unacceptable? Robert Downey Jr was in blackface for Tropic Thunder, a movie that came out in 2008. My math is fuzzy, but that's probably well after Northam was in medical school. -Paul
[2019-02-01 21:46:01] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-gov-northams-medical-school-yearbook-page-shows-men-in-blackface-kkk-robe/2019/02/01/517a43ee-265f-11e Who would've thought a Democratic governor of VA would be caught in blackface? -Paul
[2019-02-01 14:25:19] - mig: this seems like an unhelpful check. if you're in the majority, you lose if you don't also have the most number of unpopulated states on your side. and the flip: if you're in the minority, you win if you have the unpopulated states on your side. why is that a helpful check? ~a
[2019-02-01 13:53:52] - And sure, I'd certainly be satisfied with getting rid of winner take all with State EVs. - mig
[2019-02-01 13:52:47] - a: the other thing is I'm not in favor of pure democracy on a large scale like a national election. I prefer some checks on the majority when we are at that scale. - mig
[2019-02-01 12:46:06] - mig: you could have had an interstate compact that removed *only* the winner-take-all problem, but that would have been much more confusing, and i doubt states would go for it. ~a
[2019-02-01 12:44:08] - mig: ok, i'd be happy with removing winner-take-all. that would solve part of the problem. but the second part (probably the part you don't like) is that it still isn't one-man-one-vote that i think i'm more in favor of. ~a
[2019-02-01 12:40:50] - paul: ummm, maybe they're the same thing. i'm not sure actually. i think i had a misunderstanding of what instant runoff was. ~a
[2019-02-01 12:28:48] - and somewhat relatadly, the winner take all system that most states use for determining electoral votes. - mig
[2019-02-01 12:28:23] - a: also I'm with paul that i'd much rather fix FPTP, because I think that's where the real issue lies. - mig
[2019-02-01 12:27:16] - a: I think there's still value to making smaller states matter. This is a national election after all, not a NY/CA/TX/FL election. - mig
[2019-02-01 11:09:51] - a: What's the difference between instant runoff and ranked choice again? -Paul
[2019-02-01 11:07:32] - paul: there has been a push for ranked-choice voting. i think they are doing this in some primaries. if you couldn't get instant runoff, but you could get ranked-choice voting, would you be happy? ~a
[2019-02-01 11:06:00] - I'm not saying that's the case, but I'm interested in following this story more to see how it plays out. It's a little strange how even a few days later there isn't clarification on stuff like the chemical he was doused with. -Paul
[2019-02-01 11:05:36] - mig: which reason? ~a
[2019-02-01 11:04:47] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-won-t-demand-empire-actor-jussie-smollett-turn-over-n965726 So, this is interesting. When I first heard of this story, my immediate knee-jerk reaction was that this seemed a little bit like Covington, where the story seemed a little too perfectly to fit the narrative. -Paul
[2019-02-01 10:30:32] - I'm super against this. The EC exists for a reason. - mig
[2019-02-01 10:24:36] - a: Not that I am necessarily against this, but I feel like there would be zero calls for changing things if Gore and Clinton had won their respective elections. -Paul
[2019-02-01 10:23:55] - a: Eh, I would be MUCH more interested if there was a serious push for instant runoff voting or something like that. This hatred for the electoral college seems to just be motivated by the fact that the Democrats have won the popular vote a few times and lost the election. -Paul
[2019-02-01 10:14:06] - i'm pleasantly surprised that the national popular vote interstate compact is actually materializing! if the "pending" laws (virginia's included) all get passed, we'll be at, basically, 50%. iow, i think we're like only a few states away from this becoming a reality. ~a
[2019-02-01 10:02:15] - I think I nailed it with my Amazon prediction. They knocked it out of the park in pretty much every aspect of their earnings, but I guess because they said they might increase spending it's getting knocked down? -Paul
[2019-02-01 09:08:07] - Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is.
[2019-01-31 17:30:54] - Some of our background check forms need to be notarized, so I had to do that when I was checked--but I also became a notary so I can do it for people who come into the office. -- Xpovos
[2019-01-31 16:21:04] - I've had wills notarized. I think thats it? -Daniel
[2019-01-31 16:20:03] - a: We got our wills notarized (and promptly lost the physical copies). I think I've had other things notarized too, but can't quite remember. -Paul
[2019-01-31 16:11:44] - . . . i guess during a house closing, you're basically having shit notarized (they check your id), but they don't really go through the rigmarole of actually stamping something with the notary stamp. ~a
[2019-01-31 16:10:15] - do you guys ever have to get stuff notarized? i had to do it once. ever. (it was for a sublease of all things). i'm surprised more people don't require it. without a notaries, wouldn't it be super easy to sign a contract under someone else's name? ~a
[2019-01-31 16:01:40] - IN TRIPLICATE! -Daniel
[2019-01-31 15:38:37] - a: Uh, I thought I had. Do I need to get it notarized or something?
-Paul[2019-01-31 15:28:50] - "I have no desire to argue the other side so I'm perfectly fine conceding the point" so do it. concede the point. you're making arguments, and i'm not sure if i should respond or not. ~a
[2019-01-31 15:13:09] - a: Basically I think he's a tribalist, where he sees people as "groups" instead of individuals and any "group" that isn't on his side is horrible and dumb and everything else. Often appears as racism, but is broader. I'm not certain he is actually racist, but again, I have no desire to argue the other side so I'm perfectly fine conceding the point. -Paul
[2019-01-31 15:11:18] - a: Sure? I don't feel like taking the other side, but I do subscribe to the Kmele Foster POV on this (Miguel might be the only person who knows the reference). -Paul
[2019-01-31 15:05:02] - paul: djt is for-sure a racist though. ~a
[2019-01-31 14:53:48] - a: Yeah, I don't see why not. If we're constantly referring to things like maybe ending the mortgage interest deduction (which would primary benefit wealthier people) as class warfare, then it kinda diminishes the real (or more extreme) thing. Similar to when every Republican is called racist, it might diminish the charge when it might be more applicable.
-Paul[2019-01-31 14:47:35] - along the same lines as class warfare . . . if corporations are people, some of them should go to jail ~a
[2019-01-31 14:27:34] - paul: attempting to expand your analogy . . . would using the words "class warfare" to describe any changes to tax plans that don't benefit the wealthy be like overuse of the "racist" label? ~a
[2019-01-31 14:26:26] - Just to clarify that I don't think its an incorrect label for her in particular but was just wondering about the term in general. -Daniel
[2019-01-31 14:25:51] - I'm pretty comfortable with the label class warfare for a lot of what AOC says (though I don't always disagree with it) but was just wondering about it as a term that gets tossed around but not really fleshed out. -Daniel
[2019-01-31 14:23:17] - Daniel: No, I think both counts. Just like if somebody used perfectly PC rhetoric to justify throwing all Japanese people in internment camps.
-Paul[2019-01-31 14:20:44] - When I think "class warfare" I think more of the rhetoric in conjunction with the policies. With people like AOC and Sanders, i do think their rhetoric reaches a point where they are indeed stoking class warfare in addition to their policy proposals. - mig
[2019-01-31 14:19:36] - Paul: So would a proposal to increase taxes by 70% on billionaires that didn't involve that type of rhetoric not be class warfare? -Daniel
[2019-01-31 14:12:54] - Daniel: It's usually accompanied by rhetoric demonizing the rich or how it punishes them. -Paul
[2019-01-31 14:11:59] - Daniel: I like my analogy with racism. It's not black and white (pun not intended), but instead shades of grey and different people will have different definitions. In both cases I think rhetoric counts in addition to actions. This isn't often framed as "let's just tax the rich a tiny bit more to reduce inequality"... -Paul
[2019-01-31 14:02:06] - Paul: I would agree that targetting the wealthy and reducing inequality seem like goals. Do those things translate to class warfare? I don't know. Maybe they do? In my head I guess I would think of warfare as much more extreme behavior than taxes but clearly different people have different definitions. -Daniel
[2019-01-31 14:01:22] - Daniel: Personally, I think it's a matter of degree. We already have a progressive tax structure. Isn't that class warfare? Or does that not matter because it happened in the past? If we make it a little more progressive is it that big of a deal? Probably not. Rate of change matters. -- Xpovos
[2019-01-31 14:00:33] - a: I don't think many people argue that trickle down economics will "reduce inequality." I at least, would argue (were I to argue this) that they increase the bottom line for people at the bottom faster than any alternative. They climb faster under trickle down than under redistributionist in absolute terms. But if we care about relative terms, that's not good enough. -- Xpovos
[2019-01-31 14:00:32] - Xpovos: What about uneven tax increases? Is it just a matter of degree? I don't know that its black and white, just thinking through, like if everyone had a 1% increase but billionaires had a 2% increase is that cool? But somewhere between that and 70% increase moves far enough along the spectrum? -Daniel
[2019-01-31 13:31:07] - a: Right, but that's clearly not what is being proposed. -Paul
[2019-01-31 13:30:27] - "At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans [...] Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax on the wealthiest families in this country". Not sure it gets more clear than that. -Paul
[2019-01-31 13:30:10] - paul: targeting the wealthy and reducing inequality can be different things. if i try reduce inequality by . . . say trickle down economics (just an example), that would not be targeting the wealthy. ~a
[2019-01-31 13:26:18] - Daniel: Personally, I think it's fair to look at the rhetoric behind the proposals, and in that case, they're pretty nakedly obvious about their desire to target the wealthy and "reduce inequality". -Paul
[2019-01-31 13:13:55] - Daniel: I'm sure there is a definition of class warfare, but it's also probably subjective and everybody argues about it, like the definition of racism or sexism. -Paul
[2019-01-31 13:13:29] - Daniel: I'd say that raising taxes on one "class" or income level but not another is at least an act of class aggression. Whether that leads to warfare or not is a question best answered by Auric Goldfinger. Or perhaps John Galt. -- Xpovos
[2019-01-31 13:09:26] - Is there a definition for class warfare? Do all tax increases on a given income level count as class warfare? -Daniel
[2019-01-31 11:53:02] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/bernie-sanders-proposes-big-estate-tax-hike-including-77percent-rate-for-billionaires.html Gah, all the Democratic presidential candidates have to do for 2020 to get my support (not necessarily my vote) is to not suck. I guess in the age of Trump they see class warfare as a winning strategy. -Paul
[2019-01-31 11:00:06] - Wow. Family Guy is apparently 20 years old now. I feel ancient. -Paul
[2019-01-31 10:22:12] - a: Oohh. Celsius. I wasn't paying attention to that. My bad. Still very cold. -Daniel
[2019-01-31 10:21:36] - paul: sometimes your balls get cold. ~a
[2019-01-31 10:21:29] - paul: correct. ~a
[2019-01-31 10:21:21] - daniel: -12C = 10F. ~a
[2019-01-31 09:42:41] - Its -12 there? YIKES. -Daniel
[2019-01-31 09:18:16] - a: Wait, I thought biking to work was always the best option for everybody in all circumstances and drivers of cars are idiots.
-Paul[2019-01-31 08:52:09] - -12C on my bike ride to work this morning. wtf man. my balls are cold. ~a
[2019-01-30 12:44:39] - paul: "they don't need all their retirement money as soon as they retire" true, but your most vulnerable time is right at retirement (this is called sequence of returns risk). therefore most bond-tent systems have your highest bond percentage when you retire. example: 10y before retirement: 20% bond. at retirement: 40% bond, 10y after retirement: 30% bond. ~a
[2019-01-30 12:37:26] - Daniel: Well, I guess I should put it this way: I think I would be comfortable with 50%+ or so of my retirement fund in the market at the time I retire because I figure in a worst case scenario where we have a 10 year downturn, I can keep those funds in the market to ride it out while I live off my non-market funds. -Paul
[2019-01-30 12:34:19] - daniel: well I don't think Joe or Mika cared really how "accurate" he was. It seemed the whole point of the question was to create a "look at this clueless billionaire boob who can't connect to real people" type moment. - mig
[2019-01-30 12:24:34] - Paul: Vanguards Target Retirement Income fund still had 30% in the market (VTINX). I think that could be higher but they are usually use as my baseline for asset allocation. -Daniel
[2019-01-30 12:22:23] - Paul: Depends on who you mean by "people" I think most informed people (again needs definition) would advocate for keeping a sizable (needs definition) chunk in the market. -Daniel
[2019-01-30 12:21:20] - Paul: Yeah I have some rough ideas on groceries but Andrea mostly handles it at this point by doing HEB curbside where she just orders online and we schedule a time to pickup the groceries. -Daniel
[2019-01-30 12:21:13] - a: One more thing about being less aggressive in investing: I think sometimes people forget they don't need all their retirement money as soon as they retire. My hope is to slowly transition some of my retirement funds to safer things as I near retirement, but to still keep a decent chunk pretty aggressive on the day I retire since 50% or so I won't be touching for another 10-20 years. -Paul
[2019-01-30 12:19:45] - mig: Also that people would care since he admitted he doesn't eat Cheerios. Hard to blame anybody for not knowing the price of something that they don't buy... -Paul
[2019-01-30 12:17:41] - mig: Was it about how much a box of cheerios cost? How close are they expecting people to be on that? Like I would guess between 3.50 and 4.50 depending on size and what store you were in. So as long as someone said over a dollar and under like six dollars(? not sure where I'd put the upper line) I'd probably think it was fine. -Daniel
[2019-01-30 12:14:25] - paul: I was actually a little taken aback by Morning Joe playing "gotcha!" with quizzing him on a box of cheerios, which felt pretty infantile and mean spirited on the show's part. - mig
[2019-01-30 11:42:53] - paul: I'm surprised as well by the intensity of the vitriol coming Howard Schultz's way. The funny thing is these rumblings about considering to run for president may all be just to help promote his book. It'll look pretty silly in hindsight if he just decides to not run. - mig
[2019-01-30 11:28:21] - a: I always thought maybe around 10 years out would be a good time to start thinking about transitioning. So maybe when I hit 45-50? -Paul
[2019-01-30 11:10:08] - awesome. so foxconn is going to hire some engineers, which i think is actually a good thing, but it's weird they get 10b to do what they were probably planning on doing anyways. that's 10b that would have otherwise been left for wisconson infrastructure projects? glad i don't have to drive over their bridges. ~a
[2019-01-30 11:03:35] - paul: how many years out will you start to transition? bond tents often extend multiple decades, and there are market downturns that have lasted longer than 10 years. ~a
[2019-01-30 11:01:46] - a: I guess I could be on board with that more when I get closer to retirement, but I figure I'm far enough away that right now I want to take on as much risk as possible to maximize my returns still. -Paul
[2019-01-30 11:00:24] - paul: ok, here's another way of thinking of this: return per unit risk. i really like this article because it puts this idea (smoothing) into some actual math. increase your returns per unit risk. overall your returns will be lower: sometimes. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:57:41] - right. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:56:15] - a: Yeah, but the cost for that smoothing out over the long term is a reduced return, right? -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:47:03] - paul: "I don't like the drag on my returns that hedging would cause" i do. if it's a good hedge (i.e. low fees) that drag in the good scenarios is totally worth the smoothing out of losses in the bad scenarios (imo). ~a
[2019-01-30 10:45:40] - paul: well, it's why i've been buying a lot of international funds recently. the main problem i see with your plan is that no economy (except maybe europe) has the track record of the US economy. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:43:27] - a: I understand the theory, and I like the idea of hedging, but I don't like shorting anything as a practical application of it. Also... I don't like the drag on my returns that hedging would cause. Shouldn't we also be shorting VTSAX to hedge against a massive US depression since I imagine we're all overweight US stocks AND we live here and work here? -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:39:57] - the problem i see with shorting is it's not a perfect hedge: there are often astronomical fees. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:39:08] - paul: yes. no matter: those payouts will dwarf any money you'll lose in your home (and gain in shorting the REIT). i'm not sure i actually believe you should short anything that is high-dividend, but i at least follow the logic of it. it's a simple hedge. hedges can be small: short the REIT at 1% the price of your house, and it'll smooth out any losses on a doomsday scenario. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:35:14] - a: Hmmm, not short, I don't think. If you short REITs, aren't you on the hook for paying out those dividends? -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:34:47] - a: Honestly, almost not matter what I feel overweight in real estate.
I go back and forth on counting my home as an "investment" because in some ways it dwarfs everything else. I count it when I want to feel better about how close I am to retirement. -Paul[2019-01-30 10:31:50] - paul: unpopular opinion: people owning their homes should short REITs?
~a[2019-01-30 10:31:46] - a: To be very clear, I have no idea. I hadn't really heard of them until a few years ago and never really thought about investing in them until fairly recently. -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:31:35] - paul: something to keep in noodle on: reits in addition to owning your home might have you too heavy in real-estate. if a 2008-event returns, you'll wish you didn't have both high-reit and owning your home. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:27:47] - ah ok i thought REITs were new. apparently not. wikipedia says 1960. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:26:06] - a: Looks like you're back on top in 3 out of the 4 challenges now. -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:25:50] - a: I haven't done the math at all, but there's plenty of articles out there like this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/spoiler-alert-reits-have-outperformed-stocks-for-the-past-50-years-2018-11-01 -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:24:43] - paul: fun day to have amd in both challenges? ~a
[2019-01-30 10:23:32] - maybe i dunno. even with dividends, any time range that includes 2008 will have you losing to the overall US market. ~a
[2019-01-30 10:19:47] - a: I'm sure whatever analysis I was looking at was including dividends. Isn't that often the primary reason to own REITs? -Paul
[2019-01-30 10:06:26] - i don't think i agree. depending on exactly which time range you're using, reits often lose to the market (but especially if your time range includes 2008). maybe you are including dividends? i think reits typically have a larger than average dividend? ~a
[2019-01-30 09:23:27] - a: Okay, cool. Thanks. I guess the question is if it's worth increasing exposure by getting some REIT specific funds. I hadn't considered it until recently, but apparently REITs have outperformed the overall market over the past decade or two. -Paul
[2019-01-29 16:10:15] - paul: vanguard's reit is included in vtsax, yes definitely it is: amt, spg, cci, pld, psa, etc are all in the s&p500. look at the "portfolio" section, it lists all that information. yes, i also own a little bit (~1%) of reit in addition to vtsax and whatnot. ~a
[2019-01-29 13:36:22] - Paul: I don't but I know some people hold like ~%5-10 for diversity but it never seemed super important to me. -Daniel
[2019-01-29 13:22:35] - aDaniel: I feel like I've asked this before, but do you guys own any Vanguard REIT funds for diversification purposes? Not sure if they're often included in things like VTSAX or not. -Paul
[2019-01-29 12:33:09] - Right, and I guess that's my point. Maybe I'm old school, but I feel like you can't eliminate stupid from the internet without also getting rid of legitimate discourse. So hard to judge when somebody is joking or being ironic or sarcastic. How many times are you allowed to tell a journalist "learn to code" before getting suspended? 3 times? One strike and you're out? -Paul
[2019-01-29 12:27:13] - i didn't follow that story much either. rolled my eyes really hard even when the original (incomplete) story came out. yes, obviously, even without the update, doxing them was a stupid idea. ~a
[2019-01-29 12:16:37] - Paul: No idea, I didn't follow that story much at all but dox'ing them seems like a bad idea. -Daniel
[2019-01-29 12:04:14] - Daniel: Sure. I wonder if the celebrities who were trying to dox the Covington Catholic kids got banned at all, then? -Paul
[2019-01-29 12:02:29] - Paul: Its probably pretty similar though I would say the distinction is Trump is a politician / more of a public figure. I think if Brady throws four interceptions and loses there might be people telling him learn to code as well and it probably wouldn't garner quite the same response either. -Daniel
[2019-01-29 12:01:05] - Daniel: And to be clear, I don't think there should be. I want people to be able to say "Trump Caved" all day long as often as they want. But I also don't see enough harm in telling journalists to learn to code, especially when there are some legitimate gripes from the other side about what those journalists have done in the past. -Paul
[2019-01-29 11:59:25] - Daniel: Yeah, maybe. I think it's a fine line, though, that different people will have different thoughts on. I remember seeing #TrumpCaved trending on twitter when it was announced an agreement was met to end the shutdown. That seems at least as concentrated of harassment as "Learn to Code", but I don't recall any objections to it. -Paul
[2019-01-29 11:55:19] - Paul: I think its because the message isn't harassment if it was just said once and moved on. I think a concerted effort by any group to be mean to someone else who isn't already being mean isn't cool wherever it comes from (left or right). -Daniel
[2019-01-29 11:33:21] - a: In fact, there are sometimes when I drink a few drinks and still feel totally sober, but wake up with a pounding headache the next day and think, "This isn't fair. I got all the bad and no good". -Paul
[2019-01-29 11:32:43] - a: Oh, god yes. As evidenced by what happened to me at your party, my alcohol tolerance has not only gone down, but I've also discovered there's a much thinner line for me between totally sober and trashed beyond belief and feeling like death the next day. -Paul
[2019-01-29 11:29:22] - but if i drink 8 beers today, i'll likely die. ~a
[2019-01-29 11:29:10] - i.e. i remember being able to drink about 8 beers in 2003ish, and not having much of an effect the next day. same thing with 2 beers today. ~a
[2019-01-29 11:28:36] - hangover. not money. ~a
[2019-01-29 11:27:36] - a: I'm a little confused. Are you saying the same amount of money that bought 8 beers in 2000 only would buy 4 in 2010? Are we talking about the same type of beer or is this the average price of beer? Because the whole craft beer movement has probably brought the average price up. -Paul
[2019-01-29 11:21:54] - this is technically deflation, but no matter. ~a
[2019-01-29 11:21:08] - hangover beer inflation: 8 beers in 2000 = 4 beers in 2010 = 2 beers in 2020 = 1 beer in 2030. ~a
[2019-01-29 11:14:31] - Daniel: I'm actually surprised. I thought your response was going to be something along the lines of, "Yeah, that's totes harassment and should be banned. Screw those alt-right assholes."
-Paul[2019-01-29 11:09:54] - wait, kids do that? ~a
[2019-01-29 11:07:08] - Paul: Yeah thats weird. Anything repeated enough times in a mean way can become harrassment? Dunno. I mean I get annoyed at my kids when they just repeat the same question over and over again so I get the response from the journalists. But the sentiment of "hey learning a new skill might open some doors for you" seems valid. -Daniel
[2019-01-29 10:50:39] - https://www.theringer.com/tech/2019/1/29/18201695/learn-to-code-twitter-abuse-buzzfeed-journalists And then I saw this on The Ringer and now... maybe it wasn't an overreaction... -Paul
[2019-01-29 10:50:21] - http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/28/learn-to-code-twitter-harassment-policy I saw this yesterday and thought it was a bit of a funny overreaction by Reason. I know twitter can be a little over-the-top on censoring people, but "learn to code" seems pretty harmless... -Paul
[2019-01-29 07:56:36] - Amazon reports earnings this week. I have this horrible feeling they're going to have had an awesome fourth quarter but release conservative guidance for this quarter and the stock will get hammered. -Paul
[2019-01-28 16:27:29] - a: I think a story or two could've been fine based on the sheer volume. I didn't really need to see one every single day (which is what it seemed like on CNN and CNBC). -Paul
[2019-01-28 16:18:42] - paul: "overdone" overdone how? should we not discuss people who were forced to work without pay and how some who live paycheck to paycheck aren't able to afford to pay rent? ~a
[2019-01-28 16:14:09] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/wall-street-ny-democratic-donors-slam-howard-schultz-over-possible-run.html That's a lot of Democratic vitriol for somebody who seems pretty progressive... -Paul
[2019-01-28 15:08:13] - a: Completely off topic, but I just checked and somehow my NVDA position is still beating the market from when I bought it. That's amazing. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:11:13] - a: And banks and other companies likely weren't lining up to provide interest free loans to those people. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:10:45] - a: I've been unemployed a few times where the decision was not up to me and went without pay for longer than a month and had the terrifying fear that I may never get another job, let alone the one I had back. I'm not saying feel sorry for me. I consider myself ultimately lucky in many ways, but I know there are plenty of people out there in worse shape. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:08:23] - a: And this is already for a job which by most accounts is a pretty stable job that is hard to lose. I'm not saying it didn't suck for them or that it's fair or anything. It DOES suck and it IS unfair, but I think a little perspective is helpful here. Going a month or so without pay isn't the worst thing to happen to people. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:06:22] - a: And when they lose their jobs, sometimes they're out of work for months or more. There's no light at the end of the tunnel for those people where a shutdown might end and they get their jobs back and back pay. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:05:06] - a: The federal government has had a huge debt and been spending more than it's made for decades. If any other private company did that they would've been out of business a long time ago. People working for private companies lose their jobs all the time. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:03:28] - a: Also, and I considered a Facebook post about this but decided against it, while I certainly feel sorry for those federal workers forced to work without pay, I did find it a bit overdone at all the sudden sympathy for federal workers during the shutdown and all the talk about people going on food stamps. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:02:12] - a: But at the same time, when the government shuts down, it's probably the closest that we've gotten in my lifetime to anything resembling a smaller federal government, which I am in favor of. So directionally, it's something I am kinda in favor of. -Paul
[2019-01-28 14:01:15] - a: "isn't there measurable harm here?" Yes? I guess? I am not sure on the specifics, but yes it's clearly wrong to force people to work for no pay. Also, don't people end up getting back pay even if they didn't work? Or is that not true? If true, that's also bad. -Paul
[2019-01-28 13:54:36] - i know, and i don't mean to rehash, or harp, but, like this text: "I was secretly hoping the shutdown could go on forever" seems to contrary to what i think you actually believe. so assuming it isn't entirely a joke, i'm like . . . isn't there measurable harm here? ~a
[2019-01-28 12:31:16] - As always, the important thing is that I'm beating Daniel (ie, the market) by around 92 percentage points if you add up how much I am beating him across all four games. -Paul
[2019-01-28 11:56:38] - a: I wasn't losing all the challenges at the same time at some point, was I? I've been pretty consistently winning 2019. I was behind a lot for most of the others, though. -Paul
[2019-01-28 11:53:13] - a: But if there was a more ordered and fair and less extreme way to cut the federal government down to 50% or whatever of its size? Sign me up. -Paul
[2019-01-28 11:52:26] - a: I guess my point is that, in principle, I do support reducing what the FDA and EPA and DHS does. That doesn't mean I think an indefinite shutdown is the right way to go about it. -Paul
[2019-01-28 11:51:37] - a: False. I never do more harm than good.
-Paul[2019-01-28 11:23:28] - some of what paul does is unnecessary. sometimes he might even do more harm than good.
~a[2019-01-28 11:22:32] - paul: since you said "some of what" and "sometimes", i think what you said basically applies to everything. ~a
[2019-01-28 11:18:54] - man, paul, you went from losing all four challenges to (almost) winning all four challenges. quite the turn-around. ~a
[2019-01-28 11:17:56] - aw, and it's gone. ~a
[2019-01-28 11:16:23] - paul: yeah, well i took the lead on 2018q1. ~a
[2019-01-28 10:38:49] - a: I've taken the lead in 2018Q3! -Paul
[2019-01-28 10:12:47] - a: I'm not entirely sure what you mean? I think there's some good arguments out there about how some of what the FDA does is unnecessary and how sometimes it might even do more harm than good. Does that mean I think it should just be immediately and completely shut down? No. That goes back to the "structured differently" part. -Paul
[2019-01-28 09:53:53] - paul: while we're talking about essential and non-essential, is it cool that the epa, dhs, and fda were not working? non-essential doesn't apply to "forever", imo. in other words, essential means that if you don't do your work today people get hurt. on the other hand, i'm pretty sure this is wrong: non-essential employees being furloughed forever means nobody will get hurt. ~a
[2019-01-28 09:48:47] - a: "If it could be structured differently" That's part of the structured differently. Few things are less libertarian than forcing people to work without pay. -Paul
[2019-01-28 09:23:41] - paul: well a lot of the "essential" personnel (even people you would probably consider essential like the secret service) were being forced to work unpaid. you're ok with that a little bit forever? ~a
[2019-01-28 09:16:27] - a: A little bit? If it could be structured differently I'm totally on board with "forever" though. I'm of the opinion that the government should always just be "essential" personnel and who thinks the federal government should be like 80% smaller (depending on how you count it). -Paul
[2019-01-25 23:08:33] - this isn't news that is needed to be buried or not buried, i assume. ~a
[2019-01-25 23:08:16] - does it matter? he maybe broke the law, he'll probably get a fair and just trial. ~a
[2019-01-25 18:53:37] - did the shutdown developments bury the Stone news? - mig
[2019-01-25 17:58:56] - "I was secretly hoping the shutdown could go on forever" this is tongue in cheek, right? not literally forever? ~a
[2019-01-25 15:26:19] - Still surprised he caved on this before the trade war with China. Thought he could at least get a face-saving win there. -Paul
[2019-01-25 15:25:06] - Xpovos: I guess that's the best reasonable outcome for me, although I was secretly hoping the shutdown could go on forever.
-Paul[2019-01-25 14:59:24] - The wall will not be built today. Trump caves. -- Xpovos
[2019-01-25 14:22:05] - aaron: Ah, so yeah, they did handicap it like I thought maybe they should. That's cool. Makes it a fairer fight. I'm still not surprised it won. Just seems like tiny edges can sometimes make a huge difference. -Paul
[2019-01-25 14:21:12] - aaron: I almost asked if they capped the apm at all. I assume there have to be some restrictions in terms of not being able to select non-hot-keyed things off-screen to give orders to. Still, seems like even if they capped the apm, there would still be a precision that would help. Maybe I'm wrong. -Paul
[2019-01-25 14:20:29] - they even modified it have to use a camera, so that it can only act on a certain part of the map, and only has knowledge of what's on his screen... which hindered it a little, but it's still very very good - aaron
[2019-01-25 14:17:08] - paul: there are certain things a computer could do which humans could never do (e.g micro 8 marines in and out of barracks to avoid taking damage from projectiles). but in this case, the AI's APM was a reasonable 280 and its reaction time was about 350 ms -- it wasn't really cheating the way you'd expect a computer to - aaron
[2019-01-25 14:05:31] - a: correct neither explanation I've seen given for the need for a pre dawn raid makes sense. Stone isn't a flight risk, and if destroying evidence was really a concern they could have executed a search warrant long before now. - mig
[2019-01-25 14:03:42] - a: I haven't run the numbers for all of my holdings, but I checked the ones with lower market caps (which I figure are my best bets) and don't see anything that is likely to top KushCo. Next smallest company has almost twice the market cap. -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:57:08] - looking at my non-individual holdings, nothing comes close to that. ~a
[2019-01-25 13:39:48] - paul: i own .0001% of apti and .00005% of gbtc (1e-4% and 5e-5%). so, i think 4e-4% is winning. ~a
[2019-01-25 13:38:46] - paul: yeah we got the same answers. i'm off of your values by two because i used percent. ~a
[2019-01-25 13:36:23] - a: Also, within 1 percentage point of you in Q3 now... -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:35:18] - a: The funny thing is, I had it in scientific notation but went through the trouble to convert it. I believe it was 4e-6 and 9e-8 -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:34:29] - Daniel: I think the math of how the index fund is split up depends on the index? The S&P is market cap weighted, but the DOW (also an index?) is share price weighted, I think. -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:33:56] - ten thousandths and hundred thousandths?
thank you, i hate it. how about .0004% and .00001%? or 4e-4% and 1e-5%? ~a[2019-01-25 13:31:55] - Paul: I'm not sure I think it would depend on the math of how the index funds are split up? I think they are market weighted though so in theory the same percent of everything roughly? So then it would be which index I hold the most in? So probably something in the S&P 500 probably but I'm not 100% on that being true. -Daniel
[2019-01-25 13:28:39] - If my calculations are correct, then I own 4 ten thousandths of a percent of KushCo holdings and 1 hundred thousandth of a percent of Netflix. -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:27:45] - Here's a somewhat interesting thought I had during a work meeting today. What (publicly traded) company do you think you own the biggest percentage of? I was mostly thinking directly and not through funds, but I suppose you could throw that in too. My guess is it's likely the smallest market cap company I have shares of. -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:20:07] - a: It gets to log in. If only institutions made read only accounts that would be cool. So I don't know if it is for everyone because of that. Andrea isn't a fan. Mostly they just try to get me to sign up for a meeting with their financial advisors. But I like their charts and the aggregated info. -Daniel
[2019-01-25 13:18:23] - daniel: understood. how does personal capital get information? do you input specific stuff into it? or does it have read/write access to your retirement accounts? ~a
[2019-01-25 13:10:59] - a: "The Performance graph shows the time-weighted account performance based on the balances changes for each investment account. For any given date range, the money transferred in and out of the account are excluded from the calculation to ensure that balance change is a result of the changes in your holdings" I got the number from personal capital and that is there text on where it comes from. -Daniel
[2019-01-25 13:10:18] - Maybe I'm crazy, but I am not surprised an AI can beat a professional Starcraft 2 player. There is so much that can be gained by super precise and quick micro along with multitasking. Seems like an ideal setup for a computer. -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:04:43] - Daniel: My numbers aren't as clear anymore since I ended up rolling over some new money into both accounts in the third quarter of last year, but for 2019 I should be back to using accounts with no money added. -Paul
[2019-01-25 13:02:25] - Daniel: "Paul does this occasionally". Oh man, for a moment I thought you were on to my occasional pre-dawn raid with assault rifles. -Paul
[2019-01-25 12:59:10] - mig: destroying evidence is a good reason for tactical gear and a pre-dawn raid, but i feel like . . . in 2019, years after the mueller started kicking down doors, by now hopefully you've destroyed all of your incriminating evidence. ~a
[2019-01-25 12:46:39] - daniel: are you including additionally invested money? are you subtracting out added money? if so, how?
i have an equation for this, but i'm not sure if you and paul are both using it or not. ~a[2019-01-25 12:43:26] - aaron: 5-0, damn. HA i just realized that there was a huge group of people watching this at my workplace. i was like, why the fuck are all of these people watching sc2?! ~a
[2019-01-25 11:53:15] - daniel: fair point, but CNN was the only news org to make that connection? - mig
[2019-01-25 11:47:58] - https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mastering-real-time-strategy-game-starcraft-ii/ the first StarCraft II AI to defeat a top professional player... especially interesting because it evolved its own strategies based on human games, similar to alphago, instead of being pre-programmed with a strategy like other SC:BW AIs i've seen - aaron
[2019-01-25 11:43:58] - % for both of those. Sorry~ -Daniel
[2019-01-25 11:43:36] - Paul does this occasionally but looking at some money stuff today my % change for investments / retirement stuff for 2017 was +21.06. For 2018 it was -8.46 with most of the drop happening at the end of the year. -Daniel
[2019-01-25 11:37:59] - CNN also said that the pre dawn raids were done if they wanted to search the place for evidence and that if you were doing a pre dawn raid then the tactical loadout was just the standard. So don't know if they really expected a throw down or were just following their procedures. -Daniel
[2019-01-25 11:36:54] - mig: I don't know if CNN was tipped off or not but I would believe its possible they had someone staking it out. There was a comment yesterday on reddit about Muellers grand jury meeting yesterday and the fact that that was abnormal. Apparently the grand jury normally meets on Fridays and the last time they met on a Thursday was back last summer and someone was arrested the next day as well. -Daniel
[2019-01-25 11:28:35] - a: I'd guess it would definitely be spicy if conducting the arrest this way was Wray's call. - mig
[2019-01-25 11:24:51] - a: no. there's some speculation they tipped off CNN as well (so odd they were waiting there to film the whole thing). Cynical take is they wanted to make a big show of it. - mig
[2019-01-25 11:19:15] - is there a reason the fbi (with a republican director) showed up to stone's house with assault rifles and tactical gear? is stone known for being a gun guy or something? ~a
[2019-01-25 10:25:06] - haha that's funny. i just heard something on NPR about it this morning, but not enough to know what it was all about. ~a
[2019-01-25 10:07:49] - Though the devil will be in the details. - mig
[2019-01-25 09:59:20] - a: I'm going to preempt you this time. Yes, the Stone arrest is a BFD. - mig
[2019-01-24 16:13:21] - http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25834319/virginia-tech-qb-josh-jackson-rb-deshawn-mcclease-announce-transferring This seems like a huge deal. Jackson was the starting QB before getting hurt and although we haven't seemed to have a real starting RB for awhile, McClease and Kumah were pretty productive. Wonder why they are transferring. -Paul
[2019-01-24 15:53:40] - I feel like Homer's face on Garfield's head looks the weirdest. -Paul
[2019-01-24 14:38:25] - a: Interesting. The Sailor Moon column/row are solid throughout. My least favorite is probably Sonic-chu. -- Xpovos
[2019-01-24 14:21:20] - which one is your least favorite? ~a
[2019-01-24 10:49:58] - a: Ah, I suppose it's good that it's an independent agency. Not sure it changes too much, but it is nice to have that separation. -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:36:06] - paul: well newsguardtech is an independent agency. their revenue comes from microsoft, etc (technically "our revenue comes from the platforms and search engines for licensing our ratings in order to include them in their feeds and search results") but if microsoft encouraged them to change their policies, they would refuse. ~a
[2019-01-24 10:29:22] - paul: "At least it is only on IE" oh how times have changed. ~a
[2019-01-24 10:19:01] - Daniel: The other thing is... yeah, CNN is usually halfway decent relatively speaking, but they can still get things really wrong. Look at the Covington story, for example. Everybody got it wrong, and I'm worried that this green badge is going to reduce people's skepticism even more and make things like Covington even more harmful. -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:17:41] - Daniel: Yeah, this step as it is seems fine, especially if you can disable it. But once they put in the work to identify "good" and "bad" sources of news... isn't the next step to start blocking or at least de-prioritizing them in searches? After all, if they've already taken a stand on which sources are better than others, doesn't it make sense to promote some and censor others? -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:16:31] - I think there will always be some form of gatekeeper. Before internet it was media companies, back when the church I guess. So things change and the gatekeepers change but there seem to always be some arbiters of information between sources and people. Will be interesting to see how it evolves. -Daniel
[2019-01-24 10:15:19] - Paul: The tech company exerting another small step of 'control' in the way info is presented was why I thought it might concern you. I know people right now probably won't give it much credence but if it catches on and grows, maybe in 10 years they get to have a big sway on what people see as 'true'. -Daniel
[2019-01-24 10:10:21] - Daniel: It doesn't seem like such a big leap, especially since the standard has been set with banning perfectly legal things like payday loan ads. -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:09:17] - Daniel: I go back to the Damore thing. If Google thought that the idea of women and men being inherently different and possibly on average more or less suited to different work was so dangerous that an employee had to be fired for expressing the view, why wouldn't they also affect search results for that for the good of the country? -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:07:53] - Daniel: So even if this individual move isn't hugely problematic, I'm worried that it's one more step towards the big tech companies outright censoring viewpoints they don't agree with. -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:07:17] - Daniel: And I don't think that's hyperbole, with Google blocking certain kinds of ads for things like payday loans and Twitter and Facebook taking down things like Alex Jones. I'm not shedding many tears for him, but I think we're seeing the slippery slope with Patreon banning far less controversial figures. -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:05:53] - Daniel: My concern is over how the giant tech companies, who DO have a tremendous amount of control over what we are allowed to see on the internet, have recently decided what is good for the people to see and what they need to be protected from. -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:05:02] - Daniel: Like, I don't see how this is going to do anything but reinforce ideas already out there. This is like MSNBC having a piece about how Trump lies. MSNBC fans will of course believe it all and Trump fans will roll their eyes and say, "Of course that's what MSNBC would say, they hate Trump". -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:03:56] - Daniel: I think the bigger deal that Miguel alluded to is the usefulness, though. I suspect people who already read Brietbart are going to see the red X and think, "Of course the lamestream media doesn't want me to know the truth". -Paul
[2019-01-24 10:03:03] - Daniel: Oh, wow, it's standard? I was going to say I found it only moderately concerning, but maybe that kicks up a slight notch if it's standard. At least it is only on IE.
-Paul[2019-01-24 10:00:54] - a: Actually, I think Gurkie had bought RHT a mere few weeks before the buyout was announced. I don't believe she own IBM individually, and I think she still has RHT since the spread hasn't closed entirely. -Paul
[2019-01-23 16:12:56] - Its now standard in IE. Its not standard in FF/Chrome yet but it wouldn't shock me if it was by the next election. -Daniel
[2019-01-23 16:10:54] - mig: it's not an addon. ~a
[2019-01-23 16:10:22] - I just feel like anybody who cares enough to get this addon already knows what they should about the various sites. - mig
[2019-01-23 15:01:21] - a: For Fox: https://api.newsguardtech.com/D78220E0A694CD35B40D8C9B781C934AAB3DEC6B1CCE321B8FF7CC6FE07B0BFC7180BCD6AEFBD2A60A97DC242C7A0F9522FF636DDB2626AB?cid=82e82e61-eb87 -Daniel
[2019-01-23 15:00:14] - a: Foxnews.com is green with caveats and NYT is Green. -Daniel
[2019-01-23 14:44:32] - mig/daniel: well let's make it more controversial? does fox news show up as green or red? how about the failing new york times? ~a
[2019-01-23 14:11:19] - daniel: I don't know if it concerns me, I might question the usefulness though. - mig
[2019-01-23 13:21:11] - Paul: Does this concern you? https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-web-browser-fake-news-how-it-works-2019-1 -Daniel
prev <-> next