prev <-> next
[2019-02-21 16:31:10] - a: That's the kind of outside the box thinking / survival instinct that's going to lead to skynet.
-Paul[2019-02-21 16:21:35] - i just watched a very-uninteresting video about an AI playing NES games (i know there are a lot of videos of this, so i won't subject you to the link). the only part of it i found interesting was: the AI, when it knew it was about to lose, paused the game and left it paused, because it knew, if it unpaused the game, it would lose.
~a[2019-02-21 13:48:42] - super anecdotal. i just remembered that the dc/arlington biker in september was a hit a hit and run. and this time there was no hit and run. ~a
[2019-02-21 13:20:09] - a: Sounds anecdotal. What are the stats for drivers sticking around the scene after hitting pedestrians? -Paul
[2019-02-21 13:15:59] - the driver stayed at the scene. progress? ~a
[2019-02-19 18:04:07] - aaron: sometimes my fingers shift a little, but usually i think mine are pretty evenly spaced. anatomy references are for drawing purposes? ~a
[2019-02-19 16:22:21] - a: yeah some of them, like this guy... see how his middle and ring fingers are close together? a few anatomy references i've been using imply this is "correct" and it's making me think i'm a crazy person - aaron
[2019-02-19 13:10:56] - this is why i like to have spreadsheets do the math for me. you can put the equation in once, and it'll do the rest. ~a
[2019-02-19 12:58:50] - a: Oh, hah! You're right. For 216% I multiplied by 2.16 instead of the (non-intuitive) 3.16. Ugh, I hate how percentages work sometimes. -Paul
[2019-02-19 12:48:40] - i.e. you only gave me credit for doubling my money
~a[2019-02-19 12:41:28] - paul: i created a tab with my math. ~a
[2019-02-19 12:41:04] - paul: no it's not 270, it's 390. you used 116% for 2017. but i got 216% for 2017. ~a
[2019-02-19 12:27:06] - aDaniel: So, I'm not sure if I am doing this right, but if I take our 2017, 2018, and 2019 returns for the stock market challenges (from official start to official end), then Daniel's passive investing strategy has turned $100 into $119. I have turned $100 into $205. Adrian has turned $100 into $270(!). -Paul
[2019-02-19 12:10:41] - aaron: like one of these? ~a
[2019-02-19 12:10:27] - no. not really. but if your two hands are symmetrical it's probably pretty normal, right? ~a
[2019-02-19 12:10:11] - aaron: Looks like yes. -Daniel
[2019-02-19 12:05:31] - if you guys put out your hand naturally, like to catch a basketball or whatever -- are your ring finger and middle finger noticably closer together than your other fingers? do they have less of a gap? - aaron
[2019-02-19 11:46:16] - a: As always, though, the important thing is that individual stock picking is still crushing passive investing.
-Paul[2019-02-19 11:45:49] - a: Yeah, I was going to say... there's no measurement system where I'm winning 2017. 2018 I won based almost solely on timing (you were winning before the deadline and consistently after). I like my chances in 2018 Q3 and 2019, though. Still like pretty much all of those companies. -Paul
[2019-02-19 11:16:18] - paul: you're winning all of the things! 2018 (technically), 2018q3, 2019. omg. basically all of them except for the bitcoin one. ~a
[2019-02-18 09:00:30] - aaron: I feel like the same earing keeps showing up in random corners of the images. -Paul
[2019-02-17 23:57:25] - aaron: Wow. Those really are impressive. Yes, there are problems at the edges, but that is impressively good and incomprehensibly good compared to even quite recently. The next step will be animating these. That'll be where the algorithms really get tested. A still is hard, but life-like motion is going to be a million times harder. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-17 21:28:36] - https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ ai-generated face mashups... they look great at a glance but the more you look the more you're like... is his hat made of teeth?? what is up with his left shoulder? is she wearing two different earrings? - aaron
[2019-02-17 15:58:27] - Anybody nostalgic for StarCraft 2? -Paul
[2019-02-17 10:24:11] - paul: CALLED IT. ~a
[2019-02-16 22:48:01] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html Ugh, sounds like my knee-jerk reaction two weeks later might be right. -Paul
[2019-02-15 18:55:47] - https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1096154077854158853?s=19 That didn't take long. -Paul
[2019-02-15 16:25:55] - https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-backed-ai-company-claims-it-made-a-text-gener-1832650914 This damned thing can probably already produce content at a higher quality and much faster than me. There goes any hope for ever successfully monetizing RD or PvtM.
-Paul[2019-02-15 10:50:59] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/bill-weld-2020-exploratory-committee/index.html In case anybody isn't following Matt Welch on Twitter and hasn't been hearing about this non-stop for the past few days.
-Paul[2019-02-15 10:49:31] - Katherine Mangu-Ward (editor for Reason) had a good tweet yesterday that the two most likely "emergencies" that a Democratic president is likely to declare (if Trump's goes through the courts) is climate change and.... gun control. I could totally see that second one after another shooting that makes the news. -Paul
[2019-02-15 10:48:00] - a: It's so crazy that my 2018Q3 IQ position is down 31% while my 2019 IQ position is up 48%. That was a helluva 4th quarter in 2018.
-Paul[2019-02-14 17:07:52] - a: Apparently the market liked the NVDA earnings report this afternoon. Sounds like things weren't as bad as feared. I have to admit, doubling down on graphics cards (NVDA and AMD) for fantasy investing 2019 might pay off for you. -Paul
[2019-02-14 16:33:57] - The only silver lining is that this will definitely get challenged in the courts, and in all likelihood get shut down. -mig
[2019-02-14 16:16:39] - paul: yeah I could very easily see a national emergency re: climate change. That won't be pretty. - mig
[2019-02-14 15:50:23] - yup. ~a
[2019-02-14 15:47:58] - a: Great idea, Republicans in congress. Clearly the Democrats won't use a declaration of a state of emergency for climate change or student loan forgiveness or minimum wage increases or whatever else once they get the presidency back... -Paul
[2019-02-14 15:42:33] - precedent set. now if you want money to do something, no matter how non-time-sensitive your thing is, and no matter how ridiculous your congress thinks it is, you just declare a state of emergency and now you bypass congress. otoh, looking at the other states of emergency, it's possible some of them were BS too, who knows. maybe not, i dunno. ~a
[2019-02-14 14:05:21] - paul: i meant the executive+legislative. i think the legislative wasn't going to vote on anything that they thought the executive wouldn't sign: so the fault is probably shared. ~a
[2019-02-14 14:03:51] - In some alternative world, nobody would've offered any incentives and I'll bet Amazon would've settled on NYC and Northern Virginia anyway. -Paul
[2019-02-14 14:02:58] - mig: It's tough, because I DO think it's crappy how many incentives the various state and local governments were offering up to Amazon and it is sketchy at best at how Amazon seemed to be courting those incentives. At the same time, those were freely offered up by the governments, so I feel like the majority of the anger should be directed at them. -Paul
[2019-02-14 13:59:08] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/tech/amazon-hq2-nyc/index.html while i had some reservations about how this deal came about, seems like NYC is cutting its nose to spite its face. - mig
[2019-02-14 13:58:50] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/chick-fil-a-starbucks-arbys-among-eateries-hurt-by-federal-shutdown.html Another shutdown wouldn't be so bad. Another chance for the company I work for to get their name out there.
-Paul[2019-02-14 13:57:00] - a: Trump specifically? Or the government in general? -Paul
[2019-02-14 13:52:24] - 34 hours until shutdown . . . waiting until the last minute like always. ~a
[2019-02-13 16:09:08] - Work website taken down by server load because they published the data finally. What a cluster of a roll-out. Reminds me of Obamacare. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 15:39:06] - xpovos: deal. ~a
[2019-02-13 15:38:59] - paul: if he lies about the wall or the trade war with china, an opponent will likely call him on it. ~a
[2019-02-13 15:37:53] - a: I'll stake $5. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 15:30:15] - Oof, man, that's such a toss up. If he can wrap up this trade war by 2020 and make the case that he "won" and got the wall AND punished China (regardless of the truth of the matter), I could see him winning another term. -Paul
[2019-02-13 15:03:46] - xpovos: i'll take against on even odds. ~a
[2019-02-13 15:01:46] - a: Prop bet on post-2020? I'll take Trump at even odds right now. As much as I hate to type that. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 15:00:23] - yes i'm betting at least a few more people go to jail but that trump is still president through 2020. ~a
[2019-02-13 14:59:27] - oh wouldn't. sorry i misread that. ~a
[2019-02-13 14:59:14] - mig: really? i was betting against it. ~a
[2019-02-13 14:42:35] - a: i wouldn't bet on that rabbit. - mig
[2019-02-13 14:27:37] - xpovos: yah. for roughly 18 months assuming mueller the third doesn't pull a rabbit out of a hat. ~a
[2019-02-13 14:16:37] - a: I'd prefer that too, but he's the President and we're not. So I think that particular stand-off would go poorly for you and I. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 14:07:05] - though i'm not sure mexico would take him. ~a
[2019-02-13 14:06:38] - xpovos: i'm fine being on the other side of the wall from trump. i'll take the northern side. ~a
[2019-02-13 13:56:14] - Paul: Maybe that's the problem, then? Not the wall, in actuality? -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 13:55:37] - a: That's kind of what Trump is saying. "I'm building a wall, and if you don't like that, feel free to be on the other side when I do." -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 13:55:17] - Xpovos: That's fair, but in the case with a spouse, there's an emotional attachment. I might buy my wife something that I think is ridiculous simply because I know she wants it and making her happy makes me happy. I doubt Pelosi feels the same way about Trump. -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:54:15] - love it or leave it. ~a
[2019-02-13 13:50:34] - Paul: I like spouse better, because it's easier to get a new roommate. Spouse you're traditionally stuck with. Roommates gives a "just move out" clause. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 13:47:42] - a: I get your point, but I don't think children generally get a say...
For flavor, let's also say that these roommates have thousands of dollars in credit card debt and continue to spend more money than they take in each month. I feel like that's an important qualifier to add. -Paul[2019-02-13 13:43:56] - paul: it depends on what your children think. constituents play a part in this analogy. ~a
[2019-02-13 13:41:48] - Xpovos: Now say this goes on for months and years. At what point do you decide that maybe you just need to tell your roommate no instead of constantly spending money on things you think aren't necessary? -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:41:16] - Xpovos: Victory, right? You spent far less than replacing a central air unit and now your roommate is happy. Next month, your roommate says you need to replace all the drafty windows with new ones. You also think that's ridiculous, but in the spirit of appeasing them, you pay to replace their windows only. -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:40:00] - Xpovos: Spouse is a good analogy, but maybe roommate is better? Somebody you have to put up with but don't necessarily like? What if your roommate says you need to buy a new central air system but you think that's ridiculous and the one you have is fine. So, to appease them, you buy a window-unit... -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:31:14] - Paul: But in this example, your spouse is saying you do need it. And it isn't 80% off. It's a political decision of how much do you want to deal with a nagging spouse? Particularly if the cost of doing nothing (shutdown) is about the same as the cost of the problematic item ($5B for wall funding). -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 13:19:47] - Daniel: It's like buying something that you don't need at all just because it's on sale for 80% off. You didn't really save 80%, you just spent money you didn't need to spend. -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:17:52] - Daniel: "shrugging and offering 1.4b for some wall isn't the worst" Sure, but my point is that's still pretty bad and I think it's indicative of why we're running such huge deficits and have such a massive debt. Instead of making hard decisions on things we just throw money at it to make it go away. -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:15:16] - I also think that even if they aren't really for it, if the R's are willing to shut down the gov in order to get some then shrugging and offering 1.4b for some wall isn't the worst. -Daniel
[2019-02-13 13:14:21] - Paul: Hmm thats a trickier question to answer. I'm not sure what the rhetorical position would be if "some wall" funding had come up pre trump. Clearly it wasn't a priority at the time so maybe you are right but I'm not as certain as you I guess. -Daniel
[2019-02-13 13:12:40] - daniel: according to cnn, the 1.4b is for a "border barrier" which i read as "physical". i think it's not cement, but the president backed off from that years ago. ~a
[2019-02-13 13:11:31] - Daniel: Sure, there's a (potentially big) difference between "a wall" and "the wall". I imagine that if we quizzed Democrats a few years ago on if they supported $1.4 billion for "some wall" they wouldn't be for it. I think Trump has shifted the debate to where Democrats now support doing something, even if they don't call it "the wall". -Paul
[2019-02-13 13:09:11] - Paul: I think Dems would argue that the 1.4billion for 'some wall' won't be stupid and in theory ought to be helpful. Though as with many things with the gov that remains to be seen -Daniel
[2019-02-13 13:08:31] - Paul: Are we spending 1.4 billion on it? Define "it". If your "it" is "The Wall" then I think Dem's would argue that, No they are not spending 1.4 billion on it because they won't let it become "The Wall". If you are Trump then you do argue its the start of "The Wall" because thats what he hopes / plans on. -Daniel
[2019-02-13 12:54:23] - a: Like, if we all assume the wall is stupid and useless, isn't it odd that we're celebrating the fact that we're spending $1.4 billion on it? Shouldn't victory be spending nothing on it? I get the idea of compromise and all, but if compromise always means throwing billions of dollars at a stupid idea to make it go away... that seems bad. -Paul
[2019-02-13 12:52:51] - a: Nobody wants another shutdown, but I would've preferred it to giving him the money for the wall. I know I'm probably in the minority there, but I think the idea that throwing a billion dollars at what one party thinks is a stupid idea is considered a "victory" is why we've got a $22 trillion debt racked up. -Paul
[2019-02-13 12:46:55] - But its also what I thought was going to happen from the start so I'm not surprised at the outcome. -Daniel
[2019-02-13 12:46:35] - But Dem's get to say its not "The Wall" because its just 20 feet of wall (no idea on actual number here) added on somewhere and isn't going to turn into "The Wall". -Daniel
[2019-02-13 12:45:56] - I definitely think its super splitting hairs but I think its that Dem's can say we won't build "The Wall" and so no money towards that grand vision. But yes we are ok spending money on border security and yes that includes some wall somewhere. So then does Trump get to claim that the some wall somewhere IS part of his "The Wall" and that its just a work in progress? Sure. -Daniel
[2019-02-13 12:38:14] - paul: i would have liked to see absolutely nothing too, but honestly, nobody wants another shutdown. so maybe giving him 24% of his 5.7 is seen as a compromise. it's much higher than "not one penny". maybe that was a dumb talking point. or maybe it was the talking point that they needed to get everybody *down* to 24%. ~a
[2019-02-13 12:25:44] - I guess I'm just disappointed. In my opinion, the wall is stupid on so many levels and I felt like Trump's wall promises were quite possibly the stupidest promises that he made (which is saying something) so I really wanted to see him punished over it and to have gotten absolutely nothing. -Paul
[2019-02-13 12:10:10] - Daniel: I think even "some wall" is too big an ask for a large contingent of Democrats. At least, based on their rhetoric. I know things change behind closed doors. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-13 12:06:21] - "The wall" vs "some wall" has always been the difference here. Dem's don't want to fund a vision of "the wall" but are fine funding "some wall" even though there isn't really a difference in those practically. Just in the vision. -Daniel
[2019-02-13 12:03:24] - a: But how much rhetoric was there from the Dems about "not one penny" for the wall? And how much crowing was there when Trump caved? Now, with seemingly no leverage, he's getting 140 billion pennies for his wall that I think most Democrats agree is stupid. -Paul
[2019-02-13 11:53:41] - paul: he asked for 5.7 because he wanted 1.4. that's a hard sell. ~a
[2019-02-13 11:52:33] - a: Honestly, at this point any money for it seems almost like a slight victory for Trump in some way. Say what you will about how far he's had to walk back, but it sounds like he ultimately WILL get some money for his precious wall despite having little to no leverage. -Paul
[2019-02-13 11:30:11] - newest deal has 1.4b for a physical wall/fence. some think trump will sign this one. what's interesting is that 1.4b is less than the 1.6b he already turned down
~a[2019-02-11 16:44:28] - i know snopes has some pretty weird info, but wtf is this shit? ~a
[2019-02-11 16:44:05] - i just listened to a weird story on youtube! apparently this snopes article uses a source of "Holst, Lisa Birgit" (it's the only source that actually seems like it might include any useful information: i.e. "Insect Fact and Folklore" doesn't include any info on spiders). Holst, Lisa Birgit is an anagram of "this is a big troll". also, said article doesn't exist. ~a
[2019-02-11 14:55:09] - OK, so almost certainly something in my browser's settings causing problems because it also seems to have knocked out an ad block at the top-left of the page (Verizon for a). -- Xpovos
[2019-02-11 14:44:23] - it'll be another shit show if this thing shuts down on friday again. i doubt it'll happen, but i doubted it would happen last time . . . ~a
[2019-02-11 14:27:52] - i see a video here. ~a
[2019-02-11 14:27:48] - xpovos: https://imgur.com/MDpK39P ~a
[2019-02-11 14:09:19] - Paul: I can't say I don't, but I see no evidence of it. Here's what the article looks like for me: https://i.imgur.com/5GZV6AX.png -- Xpovos
[2019-02-11 13:27:04] - Xpovos: There was a video of it. Maybe you had it blocked? -Paul
[2019-02-11 13:18:57] - https://i.imgur.com/z4WKQ6D.png -- Xpovos
[2019-02-11 13:17:48] - How does that article not have a picture of the float? That's insane. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-11 12:28:12] - it's the latter, yeah. ~a
[2019-02-11 11:37:52] - a: So, how does this lightning network thing work with bitcoin? It's not some fork of the currency like bitcoin cash, right? It's just some separate transnational network on top of the blockchain or something? -Paul
[2019-02-11 11:28:45] - mig: Oh, sure, I agree there are objectionable things there, it's just more the language invoked and the... I dunno, it's hard to define.... the seeming blaming of Amazon for being successful and wanting to bring jobs to NY? I'm not really saying it right, but the whole rhetoric surround it just sounds ripped from Atlas Shrugged to me. -Paul
[2019-02-11 10:55:44] - paul: Mixed feelings. She has at least some valid objections to the deal that was made between Amazon and NYC. However, I'm not sure what is gained now by trying to derail Amazon's move at this point. - mig
[2019-02-11 10:13:35] - mig: That is really well done. Kudos to them. -Paul
[2019-02-11 10:02:59] - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-parade-float-italy_us_5c611a4ae4b0eec79b254486 I generally roll my eyes at stuff like this (the giant trump baby air balloon comes to mind). But this is just so well done I can only marvel at how amazing it is. - mig
[2019-02-08 16:27:51] - https://nypost.com/2019/02/08/ocasio-cortez-celebrates-as-amazon-reconsiders-hq2-deal/ Sometimes I read the news and get flashbacks to Atlas Shrugged. -Paul
[2019-02-08 15:34:17] - Also, the hope is to have the podcast available through iTunes at some point, if people with iPhones want to wait for that. -Paul
[2019-02-08 15:23:45] - Daniel: Travis, Andrew and I. You're welcome to make an appearance next time you're in the area. -Paul
[2019-02-08 14:47:37] - Maybe Trump isn't insane? “The first Anarcapulco was funded by this passport scheme,†Mike said. “Essentially Jeff was selling Mexican passports to Middle Eastern people. I met Egyptians and a lot of Syrians... He promised to provide passports. I’ve heard of one or two who got them before the scheme collapsed.†-- Xpovos
[2019-02-08 14:39:04] - oO a podcast! Who's on it? -Daniel
[2019-02-08 13:47:45] - We've got two more episodes recorded and ready to go over the next few weeks (although you can find them on SoundCloud if you look). And today I just published a fairly long piece about my thoughts on Twitter as a platform and an investment. Happy Friday! -Paul
[2019-02-08 13:46:33] - If anybody hasn't visited Rampant Discourse or PaulVsTheMarket lately, you might want to consider it. Lots of stuff the past week with more queued up for the next few weeks. We released the first ever Rampant Discourse podcast (available on SoundCloud, PocketCasts and Spotify, with more hopefully coming)... -Paul
[2019-02-08 11:53:15] - https://www.libertarianism.org/building-tomorrow/imagine-we-paid-food-we-do-healthcare I know this probably exaggerates things a bit, but I thought it was well researched and written and made a lot of good points. The doctor I really liked moved to a direct care model and I kinda wish I had gone with it. -Paul
[2019-02-08 11:52:43] - xpovos: haha yes.
i know we have cameras everywhere in dc, but i doubt the police use it to automatically scan license plates. ~a[2019-02-08 11:29:08] - a: You lack faith in our surveillance state? -- Xpovos
[2019-02-08 11:22:23] - Xpovos: Also, I chuckled when I read that Ron Paul was coming to the festival. Because of course he would. He seems like he has more street cred as an 80+ year old (or however old he is) than I ever did.
-Paul[2019-02-08 11:21:22] - Xpovos: Is it crazy that I didn't think the article was as bad as the headline made me think it would be? So some marijuana growers moved to Mexico and some got murdered by the drug cartel.... that seems like it could've happened anywhere, not just in an An-Cap paradise. -Paul
[2019-02-08 11:20:43] - xpovos: understood, that makes sense. but i think i disagree with you maybe? maybe it's hard for police to find a car without help from the citizens? ~a
[2019-02-08 11:20:21] - Xpovos: Oddly enough, I read another article about the Chile one recently and how it failed because of those water rights. -Paul
[2019-02-08 11:18:23] - Paul: As far as I've been able to determine, that was his legal name. It caught my attention too. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-08 11:18:01] - a: A police-mulit-jurisdiction BOLO is fine. A citizen BOLO is ... intense. The police report also is lacking a lot of detail (as they often are) so that leaves lots of room for speculation. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-08 11:05:02] - xpovos: he has a picture of his license plate on a dead guy's cellphone. 90% chance this guy is on the run. i agree that vigilante justice should be a worry, but i'm not sure how cops catch a guy who's on the run except with a bolo. ~a
[2019-02-08 11:01:53] - Xpovos: Before I read this, is his name ACTUALLY John Galton?
That seems even more spot on than the guy trying to blackmail Jeff Bezon with "dick picks" being called "Pecker". -Paul[2019-02-08 11:00:32] - https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-galton-wanted-libertarian-paradise-in-anarchapulco-he-got-bullets-instead An interesting read for me, and I imagine my anarcho-cap minded friends -- Xpovos
[2019-02-08 10:29:08] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/jeff-bezos-accuses-national-enquirer-publisher-of-blackmail-extortion.html I'm assuming everybody heard about this? I have to admit, "nude selfies" are not a con that I had considered about having Amazon be my largest holding.
-Paul[2019-02-08 10:12:11] - a: They've got the license plate. How does this need citizen BOLOs? Is releasing that data even helpful, isn't there now a chance of vigilante justice? -- Xpovos
[2019-02-07 15:46:06] - yikes newest pedestrian death in dc is a potential homicide. driver made death threats against pedestrian then immediately hits and kills the pedestrian. yikes. ~a
[2019-02-07 11:08:14] - they need captions explaining what is happening! ~a
[2019-02-07 11:07:07] - nerds. i love it. ~a
[2019-02-07 10:58:23] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywWBy6J5gz8 quick-sort with hungarian folk dancers - aaron
[2019-02-06 17:15:10] - private VM's dont need to be secure! /shiftyeyes
[2019-02-06 17:08:03] - admin1234 should probably change his password. hah. ~a
[2019-02-06 17:01:17] - What kind of password is that? That's the kind of password a moron-CS major would have on his luggage!
[2019-02-06 16:54:08] - lol
[2019-02-06 16:54:04] - admin1234
[2019-02-06 16:46:35] - a: I don't necessarily like the standard deduction. I just am for tax simplification. If taxes aren't actually simpler, then I guess that's a strike against the tax changes. -Paul
[2019-02-06 16:44:45] - also, i'm surprised you like the standard deduction: i feel like it makes people who aren't getting the standard deduction (rich people) pay more money. ~a
[2019-02-06 16:43:18] - "fewer people will be itemizing and will instead be taking the standard deduction" this doesn't make their taxes simpler. knowing whether you should take the standard deduction still requires you to do the math to know whether you should take the standard deduction. the standard deduction is dumb: it only makes taxes simpler for the irs. ~a
[2019-02-06 16:02:02] - a: I wasn't intending to measure successes or failures, just the most impactful things they did. That's why I said "signature accomplishments". Good or bad, what were the big legacy defining things that Obama and Trump did/are doing? I'm happy to consider yours. That's why I asked. -Paul
[2019-02-06 16:00:30] - a: I think the trade war is a good one that I left off. Would you replace the muslim ban with it? -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:59:33] - a: Did the tax code get more complicated? I guess it's possible, but I read that far fewer people will be itemizing and will instead be taking the standard deduction. I have been using Turbo Tax so I am shielded from the complications. -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:58:04] - a: Honestly, I spent about 20 seconds coming up with that list. It was supposed to be the start of a discussion, not the end. I framed it as a question because I was curious about your top 3. I think mine were fair, but I fully admit I could be leaving out something. For each of mine I included what seemed to be the signature achievement so far, the SCOTUS appointments, and a secondary "accomplishment". -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:54:27] - Fin. ~a
[2019-02-06 15:54:21] - paul: you're basically measuring the "successes" and not weighing them against the "failures" of each administration. why? what's more separating the administration from the president is meaningless: the president has done some shitty stuff to the people of the world. who cares if his administration has undone like 1% of the harm he's done? (what's more, they haven't) ~a
[2019-02-06 15:52:04] - paul: his trade wars were not easy to win, in fact we kinda lost them. and cutting the corporate tax rate: i think this is a good step but only if you pair it with decreased spending, or a tax increase elsewhere, or else you move the problem from one place to another! the muslim ban: you didn't address the wonderful qualities of this. i don't even know where to start with the stuff mueller has found. ~a
[2019-02-06 15:52:03] - paul: shutting down the government has had real measurable harm on the environment. ~a
[2019-02-06 15:52:02] - paul: it's an interesting story, but i don't buy it. you credit them with simplifying the tax code: they did not do this, source. you mention the libyan airstrikes but you don't mention the syrian ones. he hasn't gotten us out of syria, but he has gotten us further in. his administration claims it defeated isis and that's a lie. ~a
[2019-02-06 15:38:59] - aaron: Sure, but that hasn't gotten anywhere, right? I guess I'm talking about successes or things they've actually done. We can count the shutdown if you want.
-Paul[2019-02-06 15:28:09] - paul: i'm sure trump himself would be annoyed at having "the wall" not make your top 3 list; it was pretty analogous to obama's affordable care act considering they both resulted in government shutdowns - aaron
[2019-02-06 15:23:23] - Fin. -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:20:06] - a: Whereas Obama the person seemed by all accounts to be a pretty awesome guy, but his administration was frankly kinda poor (in my opinion, obviously). -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:19:14] - a: So, yeah, complicated. His administration is like 70% horrible but 30%... relatively good compared to previous administrations? Honestly, I think that's the key: to separate the person (who by all accounts is a terrible person with few if any redeeming qualities) from his administration (which does seem to have a few redeeming qualities for now). -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:17:32] - a: I think Gorsuch will likely end up being my favorite Supreme Court Justice of the past 20 years as well. The out of control spending is insane and terrible and the blowing up of the deficit is completely irresponsible.... but taken in a vacuum, I do think the cut to the corporate tax rate and simplifying of the tax code are positive steps. -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:15:21] - a: The crazy thing is that, as horrible as Trump is, it's possible the Trump administration might be responsible for 3 of the best "policies" of any presidential administration in the past 20 years or so (in my opinion, of course). If he actually follows through with supporting significant criminal justice reform and pulling troops from overseas? That's so much better than the previous 20+ years of presidents have done there... -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:11:14] - a: What would you list as the 3 signature policies for Obama and Trump? Is it Obamacare, Sotomayor/Kagan, and Libyan airstrikes? Something else on the list? What are Trump's? Tax cut, Gorsuch/Kavanaugh, Muslim ban? -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:08:45] - a: It's hard to disentangle things from Congress too, obviously, since they're in theory the ones passing laws. For example, should Trump get credit for the tax cut? Blame for the budget? -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:07:35] - a: I think it's complicated. The easy answer is to say that Trump is so clearly worse, and I think I ultimately would say that Obama was better, but if I take an objective look at the policies each administration pushed.... it's pretty close. -Paul
[2019-02-06 14:50:30] - paul: "but I don't know if I could stomach most of the Democrats who hope to replace him" do you think obama was worse than trump? ~a
[2019-02-06 13:31:51] - https://twitter.com/i/moments/1093189250781192194 So, uh, does the entire executive branch of the Virginia state government need to resign? -Paul
[2019-02-06 13:22:46] - Daniel: And honestly? I probably would tolerate some corruption for criminal justice reform. That's a situation where it seems like more good can come out of not ruining so many people's lives versus a few people getting rich off taxpayers. -Paul
[2019-02-06 13:21:50] - Daniel: Because it's kinda like the hypothetical I posed to you. If Kamala Harris gets elected, then I can get rid of the corruption of Trump but probably lose any momentum on criminal justice reform. Bernie or Warren being elected means more nonsense about stock buyback restrictions and wealth taxes. -Paul
[2019-02-06 13:17:13] - Daniel: Yeah, and that's fair. I honestly don't know what my answer would be. I would love for Trump to lose next election, but I don't know if I could stomach most of the Democrats who hope to replace him. -Paul
[2019-02-06 13:14:13] - So clean but bad policy I guess would be my choice if offered as such. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 13:13:52] - I think policy changes and flows based on politics, I think corruption is harder to deal with once its normalized. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 13:11:45] - Daniel: I agree with the corruption point. I guess my question is: Would you rather a corrupt president who was... mediocre on policy? Or a squeaky clean president who was horrible on policy? I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, but I also don't think one is significantly better or worse than the other. -Paul
[2019-02-06 13:06:08] - Right I don't think policy wise its actually been that terrible (though not great). I think the existential danger he represents is an increase in grift and corruption associated with the presidency and politics in general. I think that is worse for him than I'm aware of for previous presidents. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 12:57:01] - Heh, and Miguel and I are apparently saying the same thing. -Paul
[2019-02-06 12:56:41] - Daniel: Is that worse than... invading Iraq? All of the civilian deaths from drone strikes? Airstrikes in Libya? It's impossible to definitively compare, obviously, but I guess my point is that if you look solely at the policies being put in place and legislation being passed and put aside the rhetoric and incompetence and corruption (for now), I don't know if his administration is that different. -Paul
[2019-02-06 12:54:04] - It's a repetition of what I've said before, but I don't think Trump really is all that different from other president. he just simply dispenses with the pretense of decorum and norms. - mig
[2019-02-06 12:53:48] - Daniel: I don't disagree that he's worse in so many ways, but to me the question is if he's worse enough to be treated fundamentally different. I don't know. I do think we need to be careful about keeping perspective, though. What's the absolute worst thing he has done? Muslim ban? Child separation? Something else? -Paul
[2019-02-06 12:51:31] - mig: I'm confused by those two sides of your sentence. If you think Trump is an acceleration of corruption how is that not more dangerous than other presidents? -Daniel
[2019-02-06 12:45:48] - daniel: you're not really wrong, but I just don't believe Trump is somehow dangerously unique than other presidents in the past. - mig
[2019-02-06 12:41:46] - I don't think there is no corruption or no profiting off things in politics but I think Trump represents a severe acceleration of those things and I think thats more dangerous for the country than a lot of his policies in the long term. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 12:41:03] - Paul: I would say that Trump is a more existential threat to our democracy than we've had in a long time. I think he represents the erosion of a lot of the norms of the presidency and if people view the presidency as a way to get rich (donations / tax laws / gov spending on your own property) rather than a way to serve the country I think that is bad and leads to more and more corruption. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 12:36:37] - mig: Heh, it's funny, but I think that's not too far off from the truth for some (not all, but some). I think some people think Trump is an existential threat to American democracy and must be defeated at all costs.... even more so than most Republicans. -Paul
[2019-02-06 12:30:53] - paul: defeating trump takes priority over everything. Anything that's not perceived to not be in support of that goal is literally hitler. - mig
[2019-02-06 12:25:12] - daniel: yeah, i've definitely heard of that. it's shitty, but i'd probably do it. at least smtp is no longer unencrypted. ~a
[2019-02-06 12:20:35] - It's also weird to me that independents have an unfavorable view of him, but I wonder if that's for the same reason as Democrats.... they hate Trump and are worried he is going to throw the race to him. -Paul
[2019-02-06 12:19:42] - https://medium.com/@ChngRsrch/presidential-polling-on-howard-schultz-for-president-db970ad2b42d This seems relevant to the discussion about third party runs. I can understand why Republicans might not like him considering his progressive background, but I still think it's crazy how strongly Democrats have turned on him. -Paul
[2019-02-06 11:58:57] - Paul: Yeah I think thats why they are doing it but it was more the process of it. Rather than have a secure online form or some better means (even over the phone?) emailing CC info just seemed like a terrible idea. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 11:57:50] - mig: I'm less worried about over the phone because as far as I know (could be wrong) its more transient. The phone call ends and isn't stored anywhere. The email however is going to sit around on a server and just be. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 11:56:02] - daniel: personally i'm still nervous that people when still ask/require giving out a CC over the phone. - mig
[2019-02-06 11:47:35] - Daniel: I had never heard that before, and I agree it's weird, but I guess I don't find it too surprising? I could see how Valentine's Day might be the biggest day of the year for them and if they're expecting to have demand outstrip supply, they probably want to make sure they don't get anybody flaking out to essentially cause a table to be vacant. -Paul
[2019-02-06 11:40:07] - A restaurant I made a reservation at for Valentines Day wants me to email my CC info to them in order to confirm / ensure the reservation. I told them no and that was a bad business practice but was kind of shocked that a business would need to be told that nowadays. Am I the crazy one there? -Daniel
[2019-02-06 10:59:53] - Also, I feel compelled to ask: Do you think those people who think voting third party is worse than voting Republican would agree with those PSAs that implore people to vote "no matter who you vote for"? -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:57:42] - I'm not pro third party currently (would be better in a insta runoff or ranked choice type thing) but I'm not sure how voting 3rd party is worse than voting for the other major party. That seems odd. -Daniel
[2019-02-06 10:50:24] - a: It's like how a friend betraying you hurts more than an enemy hurting you. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:49:36] - a: I think the reason why they think it's "worse" is because (in this instance), they already know that the Republican voters are evil and irredeemable, but they see the third party voter as somebody on their side who isn't evil and irredeemable and should know better but is thumbing their nose at their "good" candidate just to be a jerk. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:46:09] - a: I don't think any of them would describe it that way, and would probably object, but that's the only reasonable interpretation I can come up with. I think we're seeing a version of that with Schultz. How dare he not run the democratic primary! He is now evil and must be vanquished because he is against us. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:45:13] - a: Oh, I know, and I agree, but I think their thinking is that everybody (whether they intend to vote or not) should be voting for their candidate, and so if you aren't doing that, regardless of what you are actually doing, you are voting against their person. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:43:40] - paul: but to take the absurdity even further, they're saying it's *worse* than voting republican. that makes my head hurt. ~a
[2019-02-06 10:43:05] - "the idea that a vote for anything except their candidate is a vote against their candidate" if that were the case, maybe i'd understand. but a vote for a third party is only like . . . half of a vote against their candidate? i guess they're rounding up? ~a
[2019-02-06 10:34:15] - a: I think the logic is there, but it's convoluted, and IMO, wrongheaded. A vote for a third party splits the power. A vote for the opposition is wrong, but at least is keeps boundary lines clean. If you're truly pro-party rather than just anti- the opposition, then you want as much power in the hands of your party as possible, even when you lose. Empowering different, but similar, voices is not helpful. -- Xpovos
[2019-02-06 10:28:26] - a: If we had instant runoff voting, then the objections to third party votes would probably be a lot less legitimate. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:27:56] - a: Actually, maybe the best indirect way to respond is to bring up instant runoff voting. My guess is that the majority of the objection comes from the idea that a vote for anything except their candidate is a vote against their candidate. Things like instant runoff voting fixes that. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:23:51] - a: I wish I knew. People seem to get all emotional and... illogical when it comes to the issue of voting. I wonder where on the scale "not voting" falls? I guess that might be the worst of all? -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:16:18] - paul: i know we've talked about this a bunch before, but i'm like sort of friends with a bunch of democratic insiders. and they all think voting for a third party is worse than voting for a republican. obviously, the logic of this defies my understanding, but how do i even begin to respond to that line of thought? ~a
[2019-02-06 10:04:52] - aaron: In that I've seen some evidence that they were pulling equally from both sides until the Democratic Party went negative on them late in the campaign, which caused some LP supporters to leave and vote Trump. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:03:56] - aaron: And everybody assumed that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld (the LP candidates who were both former Republican governors) would be a lock to pull more from Trump, but I think the numbers showed they ultimately pulled more from Clinton.... although even that was complicated. -Paul
[2019-02-06 10:02:50] - aaron: Assuming you mean a Republican running as an independent, then I think it's more complicated than that. There's a large swath of independent/centrist voters who generally swing elections and it's hard to predict where they would go. Also, weird things happen. People who voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016, for instance. -Paul
[2019-02-06 09:43:44] - aaron: i think you're right, but i think that won't happen. repubicans won't run as an independent against the president. it's more likely a democrat will do that actually. sanders practically did exactly that four years ago. ~a
[2019-02-06 09:42:43] - aaron: You mean like a 3rd party candidate who takes votes from Trump? -Daniel
[2019-02-06 09:42:26] - paul: anybody is going to have an uphill battle. nationalism isn't going to magically go away for at least a decade. ~a
[2019-02-06 09:41:20] - assuming literally any republican runs against trump and gets even like... 3% of the republican votes, wouldn't that just mean the democratic nominee wins by default? they could just nominate a shoe. i'm probably underthinking it - aaron
[2019-02-05 16:39:41] - mig: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/democrats-2020-defeating-trump/index.html Biden might be the smart bet. He's probably going to be considered the safest bet to unseat Trump (although I honestly don't know if I agree). -Paul
[2019-02-05 15:16:44] - - mig
[2019-02-05 15:16:39] - I think it's ultimately going to be Biden if he throws his hat into the ring.
[2019-02-05 14:59:01] - a: Like demanding that Danny Rand from the Iron Fist tv series be portrayed by an Asian just because he practices martial arts? -Paul
[2019-02-05 14:09:23] - probably would have been racist if they had. ~a
[2019-02-05 13:39:01] - Wait, the SOTU address falls on the same day as the Lunar New Year and the Democrats didn't nominate an Asian to give the rebuttal? Sounds racist to me.
-Paul[2019-02-05 12:16:46] - paul: prolly biden. he was the vp last democratic presidency. and he didn't go for the president because of hillary? ~a
[2019-02-05 12:01:40] - Paul: To early for me to guess! I think Harris will her shot at it but who knows how it turns out yet. -Daniel
[2019-02-05 11:21:43] - If I had to randomly guess one, I might say Kamala Harris, because she ticks the demographic boxes (non-white, female) and also happens to be horrible on so many issues (IMHO) and that's how these primaries seem to go for me.
-Paul[2019-02-05 11:20:39] - Anybody want to hazard a guess who the Democratic nominee will be for president? I can't figure out who might be the front runner. Part of me thinks it'll be a non-white female because that seems like it would be important to a sizeable segment, but I could also seem the party going with a "safe" pick like Biden. -Paul
[2019-02-05 11:03:02] - a: And this is another one of those ways to do that, even if it might have unintended consequences and/or be a bad idea. "The little guy" probably has a negative association with "stock buybacks". -Paul
[2019-02-05 11:02:24] - a: That's interesting. I feel like the reason they are doing this is because they think it's good optics. Between all of the proposals to tax the wealthy and the attacks on Schultz, it seems pretty clear that the Democratic party as a whole has decided that their best method of attack is to slam the "wealthy". -Paul
[2019-02-05 10:54:22] - it also seems like a bad . . . political decision? won't the optics of this be much worse than much more useful moves? they're squandering their advantage. ~a
[2019-02-05 10:18:54] - Daniel: I suspect it's because there's been a fair amount of publicity over how businesses have used the corporate tax cuts to buy back a lot of stock. I agree that at best it seems like an odd lever to pull. -Paul
[2019-02-05 09:28:54] - Paul: At best it seems very round about... Like if you want to help the middle class why not do it more directly somehow? It does seem odd. -Daniel
[2019-02-04 21:38:47] - Daniel: And the Democrats wanted that money to instead be used to increase wages or... other things. Basically, it's another way to punish the wealthy and try to help the middle-class. -Paul
[2019-02-04 21:38:00] - Daniel: I think the rationale is that the corporate tax cut returned a lot of money to companies and many of those companies used it to provide buybacks which largely helped owners of the stock, who are largely the wealthy. -Paul
[2019-02-04 21:32:30] - So is it less the buybacks in a vacuum but rather companies doing buybacks and then high level people exercising options or something? I'm trying to figure out what the point of limiting them is even supposed to be? -Daniel
[2019-02-04 18:15:58] - I'm equating a stock buyback to a dividend: both are vehicles meant to try to return value to shareholders. -Paul
[2019-02-04 18:03:57] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/democratic-super-pac-unleashes-first-wave-of-opposition-research-against-howard-schultz.html The Democratic attack on Schultz because of his wealth continues. -Paul
[2019-02-04 18:02:32] - paul: i mean, a buyback and a dividend both are any amount of money you want them to be. ~a
[2019-02-04 18:01:58] - paul: couldn't? why couldn't? ~a
[2019-02-04 18:01:43] - daniel: it's probably also way safer than giving out a dividend. in fact, i think buffet has said basically that: why do a dividend when you can do a buyback? i mean, if you don't have a good use for the money, what makes you think your investors have a better use for that money?
~a[2019-02-04 18:00:23] - Daniel: If you want a simplistic analogy, it's a bit like saying a company couldn't pay a dividend. -Paul
[2019-02-04 17:58:54] - daniel: in many ways, its the opposite of an IPO. the company either thinks its stock is undervalued, or the company wants to take ownership of its company back (maybe even to redistribute to employees?). if you limit a stock-buyback, you're probably also unintentionally limiting IPOs. ~a
[2019-02-04 17:12:58] - Why is limiting stock buy backs bad? I'm not really familiar with them. They are when a company buys its own stock back in some amount? Whats the normal business case for that? -Daniel
[2019-02-04 15:02:40] - And to be clear, Republicans are no better. As soon as they get power they lose any sense of fiscal responsibility and get all obsessed over immigration or whatever else it is. -Paul
[2019-02-04 14:50:10] - a: Fair. I used the term as shorthand. Saying, "not allowing stock buybacks unless certain employee friendly metrics were met" was too long for me.
-Paul[2019-02-04 14:36:15] - "banning stock buybacks" seems like a mischaracterization, but i agree limiting buybacks is a dumb move. my guess is that most economists would be against it. ~a
[2019-02-04 14:04:36] - All the big noise by presidential candidates is about wealth taxes or 70% tax rates or banning stock buybacks or other (IMHO) bad economic policies and not the things that they could get my support on (criminal justice reform, immigration, etc) -Paul
[2019-02-04 14:02:59] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/schumer-and-sanders-swipe-at-trump-tax-cuts-with-stock-buybacks-plan.html I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is why I feel like Democrats make it so hard for me to root for them. They retake some reins of power and instead of doing something to let more refugees in or increase immigration, it's all about taxing the rich more or banning stock buybacks. -Paul
[2019-02-04 13:43:32] - In fact, looking back, I timed it almost perfectly wrong. I think I sold literally days before it spiked upwards. -Paul
[2019-02-04 13:42:18] - In March 2018, I bought 100 shares of CRON for around $10 a share. I sold 5 months later for around $6 a share. Whoops. -Paul
[2019-02-04 13:15:52] - a: But, yeah, I think I'm going to stick with flat out end of singing. -Paul
[2019-02-04 13:15:36] - a: Apparently it's Christina Aguilera's fault because she did a double "brave" in the past and caused all sorts of problems so they had to define when it should end? I can understand why they might want to end after the first. Allowing a second gives the singer time to gather their breath and really draw it out... -Paul
[2019-02-04 13:05:50] - yeah, people are dumb. it should be when she stops singing. ~a
[2019-02-04 13:04:33] - End of the first put it at "under", end of the second put it "over". We scored it as over, because I just assumed we went until she stopped singing. -Paul
[2019-02-04 13:04:03] - https://www.ajc.com/sports/football/the-over-wins-gladys-knight-national-anthem-prop-bet/trkaNoxqWN9jFPMkt9k9DM/ Also, for those who did the prop bets last night... apparently there is some controversy over the national anthem one. Most sports books end the timing after the first "brave" and Knight sang it twice last night. -Paul
[2019-02-04 12:59:46] - How much to hold people accountable for past transgressions when they appear to no longer hold those offensive views is something I struggle with weighing. -Paul
[2019-02-04 12:59:14] - mig: Yeah, it's tough, because there seems to be enough evidence that even the biggest Northam supporter likely has to admit that he had previously made some questionable and offensive decisions during his early adult life. At the same time, if he has seemingly renounced them and is doing the "right" thing now, isn't that more important? -Paul
[2019-02-04 12:41:41] - and that's kind of absurd. - mig
[2019-02-04 12:41:32] - I think I agree with the main general point. The way people talk about Northam it's as if he still sits in his office at night in his klan mask/blackface and schemes for ways to brings minorities now. - mig
[2019-02-04 11:50:27] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/us/racist-photo-northam-blake-analysis/index.html I thought this was a surprisingly interesting article from CNN about the Northam dust-up. I don't know if I agree with all of it or even most of it, but it was definitely thought-provoking. -Paul
prev <-> next