prev <-> next
[2019-06-25 16:34:35] - a: Likewise, I'll bet the single most effective thing you could do to reduce gun homicides is probably end the drug war. There are so many guns floating around in America that there is no way to get them out of the hands of every potential murderer. We probably have a better chance of making them not want to murder anybody. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:33:25] - a: I think we're making the mistake of blaming the tool instead of addressing the underlying cause. It's like banning cars because of drunk driving deaths instead of treating people getting behind the wheel drunk. Something like 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides. I know guns make those attempts more effective, but getting rid of guns isn't going to stop all suicides. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:29:53] - a: Yeah, I think we're close to the line where we disagree. Are they preventable? In some sense, yeah, just like drowning deaths are preventable by banning pools. Curious to hear what changes other countries have successfully implemented and where you got hundreds of thousands of people dying. I'm seeing around 40k a year in the US counting suicides. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:29:36] - we could be much better, like all of the developed nations save one. ~a
[2019-06-25 16:26:22] - "pretty tame" here's where we might disagree. these deaths are preventable. we *must* institute changes that dozens of other countries have implemented successfully or hundreds of thousands of people will needlessly die. each year. ~a
[2019-06-25 16:22:53] - We could be better, like Japan, but we could also be worse, like Brazil. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:22:15] - a: Right, I think you can make an accurate statement that the most radical thing about our country compared to our peers is how much we love our guns. Yes, our gun deaths correlate with that love of guns, but our death to ownership ratios is about in line with others and pretty tame compared to developing countries. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:14:48] - paul: i don't think it's irrelevant or misleading. it's nuance that i'm fine with. "more gun deaths despite fewer guns" yeah, i don't disagree here either. non-developed nations will see this because they have growing pains that we haven't had to live through recently. the onion article that i love to quote "'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" is missing the word "developed". ~a
[2019-06-25 16:13:57] - a: I know you probably think that latter part is misleading, or irrelevant, but I think it's important context. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:13:38] - a: Agreed. But I think the original scatterplot was trying to advance a narrative that it stood alone as the most gun owning and gun deathful country. The new charts show that in some ways, it mostly stands apart for owning a lot of guns and less so for gun deaths (unless you compare to other developed countries). -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:11:33] - paul: the trendline is an independent argument. the united states stands alone with or without a trendline. ~a
[2019-06-25 16:08:38] - a: And I think the new charts you made help advance a more nuanced set of stories which show that some places (yes, basically entirely less "developed" than the US) have far more gun deaths despite fewer guns and that when looking at all countries what stands out is not how many gun deaths the US has, but how many guns. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:06:00] - a: I do, however, think that the story (in as much as there is one) is more nuanced than "The United States is uniquely and radically extreme in their number of gun deaths and the cause is their extreme level of gun ownership as shown by this trendline" (yes, I know that might sound like a strawman, but that's what it felt to me that the scatterplot was trying to show). -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:03:45] - a: Just to be clear, I'm not disagree that among "developed" nations, there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, nor do I disagree that the US stands apart from other "developed" nations in terms of high numbers of both. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:41:13] - using an hdi cutoff of 0.85, the trendline "goodness" is r2=0.8. for an hdi cutoff of 0.9, r2=0.9. for an hdi cutoff of 0.8, r2=0.5. ~a
[2019-06-25 15:37:42] - for the "high hdi" chart, you can choose the hdi cutoff. finding a trendline for every nation (no hdi cutoff) might be hard. ~a
[2019-06-25 15:28:16] - a: Maybe a better example would be getting rid of pools would reduce drowning deaths. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:27:50] - a: But I also just don't know how useful it is to say that getting rid of guns will lower gun deaths. Getting rid of cars likely would reduce car deaths as well and while I'm sure you would love that, I don't know if that's feasible or even the right way to look at the problem. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:26:36] - a: While I don't doubt that you're probably right that decreasing guns would lead to fewer gun deaths, you're inferring a causation from a correlation AND just because gun deaths might go down, it doesn't mean total deaths would. For those suicides, people can still hang themselves and take pills. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:24:50] - a: "no not if you look at "developed countries"" Right, but wasn't the point of this entire exercise to NOT handpick certain countries and instead look at the larger picture? I'm only picking a linear trendline because that's what was from the previous scatterplot. I'm not trying to pick the trendline which most reinforces a narrative here.
-Paul[2019-06-25 15:22:56] - a: https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/how-many-guns-do-americans-own/ I dunno, most of the things I'm reading for my "guns in amerca estimates" google search indicates that estimates vary a lot. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:20:59] - paul: no not if you look at "developed countries". and regardless, even if it did, (it doesn't) that assumes that the trendline needs to be linear. it doesn't. even if the trendline isn't linear, decreasing guns is a net "good thing" when looking at correlating (*) with lower homicide (or total) firearm deaths. ~a
[2019-06-25 15:18:44] - a: Right, and now if we add a trendline, doesn't the US punch way BELOW its weight for gun deaths vs gun ownership? Obviously, there's a good explanation, as those developing nations are "skewing" things, but I think this gives a more complete picture vs the other scatterplot so you can see multiple narratives. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:17:56] - paul: there are notes on the methods for estimation listed in the sources. yes, estimates can vary, but i'm not sure they vary greatly. ~a
[2019-06-25 15:16:57] - i also added a "homicide" chart. ~a
[2019-06-25 15:09:08] - a: Although I still do wonder about other comments I made on the reliability of the data. I have to imagine the accuracy of tracking gun ownership varies a ton, especially in developing countries. Heck, even in the US all we have are estimates that can vary greatly, right? -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:07:27] - a: Wow, nice! Thanks. Do you agree that your chart is a little more interesting (although harder to read)? You can still see the narrative that the US is an outlier among high HDI countries both in terms of gun ownership and gun deaths, but it also puts some perspective with other countries (that aren't warzones) with higher gun death rates. -Paul
[2019-06-25 15:04:27] - paul: ok. it's got all the countries, and the hdi is the color. red and cyan have high HDI, all the other colors have (relatively) low HDI. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:49:05] - a: I think if we wanted a good full(er) picture of things, we could include all countries (or at least countries where we have reliable data) and color code based on HDI or something. Then we can see that maybe the developing nations tend to be near the upper right (maybe with the US) and the more "developed" nations are in the lower left. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:47:01] - a: "nah, i'm not saying that" Okay, but then why the comment about the US possibly being put back into the category of developing nation? I can't think of any reason that would be done except for gun violence. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:46:09] - "it almost sounds like you're talking about defining a developed country based on how much gun violence there is" nah, i'm not saying that. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:44:08] - a: Like, if we're excluding countries with lots of gun violence because we consider them "developing", then obviously the US is going to compare poorly to the "non-developing" countries.... -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:43:30] - a: I suspect you're not saying this, but it almost sounds like you're talking about defining a developed country based on how much gun violence there is, which is kinda a circular thing, right? -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:42:12] - a: "a reason is that lessons learned from warzones and developing nations, can't always be applied to developed nations?" Sure, and that's exactly one of the points I made early on when you said it was weird I was looking for more data to avoid what was obvious. I don't think most people would consider Russia or Brazil warzones, though. Australia maybe. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:41:46] - huge amounts of gun violence: yes developing nations tend to have a lot of gun violence. and until we put the united states back in the category of "developing nation" (which is a future possibility), i think this will be expected. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:40:22] - a: And it seems REALLY suspicious that two of the four (?) random countries I thought it was weird that were missing also happen to have huge amounts of gun violence. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:40:18] - paul: no. but lots of these graphs use "developed nations" (AND use a definition to decide what's developed and what is not, i'm sad that the image doesn't include that data, but maybe the article does). a reason is that lessons learned from warzones and developing nations, can't always be applied to developed nations? ~a
[2019-06-25 14:39:27] - a: You can't just leave out random data points. Even if there is nothing nefarious going on (which could entirely be the case), those data points should be in there. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:38:44] - a: Okay, but you don't think that's incredibly weird to randomly leave out some countries for a graph like this? What if I graphed something like US Presidents in our lifetime against economic performance but (without explaining why) left out.... Bill Clinton and GWB and then showed a trendline showing Republicans had better economic performance? -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:37:03] - paul: "I suspect it was done intentionally. Why? I don't know. I suspect maybe to show the US way off in the upper right?" ok. but i think that's not the case. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:36:55] - no. i just picked oecd as an example definition. i'm not sure which definition they used. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:36:32] - a: Okay, so the new rules are it has to be developed AND OECD? -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:35:35] - a: Right.... I think you're mistaken in the belief that I am trying to show that gun deaths don't correlate to gun ownership. That these missing data points support that idea doesn't refute what I am saying. I am saying it's an oddly selected group of countries and I suspect it was done intentionally. Why? I don't know. I suspect maybe to show the US way off in the upper right? -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:34:48] - paul: saudi arabia isn't oecd. kazakhstan isn't oecd. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:33:51] - a: And Saudi Arabia and... Kazakhstan? I dunno, those are just the ones I found by spending like a minute looking. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:33:12] - bottom right = bottom left. mistake again. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:33:02] - australia, if it matters, has a very low gun-death rate (about 1). and a low gun ownership rate (about 14 guns / 100 people). so we'd see them at the bottom right of the graph. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:31:43] - paul: "the 'developed' logic doesn't fit". because of australia? ~a
[2019-06-25 14:30:29] - a: Which might place them in the same area code as the US in that scatterplot, which is interesting because the most striking thing about that scatterplot to me right now is that the US is so far removed from the pack in the upper right. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:29:51] - a: I stand by my statement. I can't find any rationale behind which countries are included (or excluded), and the "developed" logic doesn't fit. Interestingly enough, though, two of the major omissions I mentioned (Russia and Brazil) have pretty high gun death rates. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:28:48] - "only oecd one on your list that's missing is russia" should have said australia. mistake. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:27:50] - paul: i'm not sure where russia and australia are. australia is oecd, and russia and saudia arabia are not. i wouldn't call it "obviously carefully selected". your four examples are mostly non-oecd. and the only oecd one on your list that's missing is russia. i'm not sure you can derive intent from one country. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:26:40] - a: Or Saudia Arabia, for that matter. Also, does it make sense to draw the line between "very high" and "high" HDI countries? Maybe, but I'm curious what it would look like with those added in. Again, I'm not trying to push any narrative necessarily. I think if you added those it might actually strengthen the idea that gun ownership correlates to gun deaths (assuming that's what is "staring me in the face"). -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:23:17] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#/media/File:2018_UN_Human_Development_Report.svg Because some countries are missing for no reason that I have been told? Apparently Brazil is considered a little less developed than Argentina and Chile, and that's fine, but what about Russia and Australia? -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:21:08] - "obviously carefully selected set of data points" i missed where that was obvious. it's because it doesn't have brazil? or some other reason? i don't think brazil fits in anyones' definitions of developed. ~a
[2019-06-25 14:13:29] - a: All I'm trying to say is that the scatterplot doesn't seem to be that helpful except to tell me that the United States has a lot more guns and a lot more gun deaths than a carefully selected group of countries. I suspect it's trying to show a correlation between presence of guns and gun deaths, but I don't think it does a good job of that either. -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:11:49] - a: Or maybe I'm misreading what you're trying to say, because it occurs to me I'm not sure what preconceived notions you are talking about. I know there are studies that show that availability of guns is correlated to increases in gun deaths, specifically gun suicides. Is that the preconceived notion I am trying to find a view of? -Paul
[2019-06-25 14:03:59] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Brazil And it sounds like they also have a lot of guns, so it would probably support the narrative you're trying to push?
-Paul[2019-06-25 14:02:38] - a: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/11/09/666209430/deaths-from-gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world Do you have any information why Brazil was left off your list? They seem to have a big problem with gun deaths... -Paul
[2019-06-25 13:58:19] - a: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/chart-of-day-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-gun-deaths/ If you're trying to prove a point about gun ownership and gun deaths, I find something like this much more compelling. It appears to include all the data points (all 50 states) and the fit seems better. -Paul
[2019-06-25 13:55:31] - a: I actually took away the opposite, that I'm surprised the correlation of such an obviously carefully selected set of data points based on preconceived notions and trying to tell a story doesn't fit better. -Paul
[2019-06-25 13:54:38] - a: It's interesting to me that you think a scatterplot dealing with two variables and seemingly randomly selected data points where the trendline (based on the eye test alone) seems to be a bad fit is "striking". https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations -Paul
[2019-06-25 13:16:34] - paul: it does interest me that you're trying to dive deeper into the data when the data is staring you right in the face.
even if you filter out suicides and only look at homicides the data is striking. is there a reason you're trying so hard to find a view of the data that correlates with your preconceived notions? ~a
[2019-06-25 11:08:15] - a: Ah, okay. Still, I'm surprised there's Argentina and Chile but no Brazil. New Zealand but not Australia (as far as I can tell). China isn't considered developed yet? -Paul
[2019-06-25 11:05:59] - paul: no, not lack of data i'm sure. it's probably focusing on "developed nations". lots of the graphs that have "US" in the *worst place in the world* are usually filtering out (at the very least) war-zones. anyways, some graphs use oecd, but there are other definitions too. ~a
[2019-06-25 11:00:27] - a: Knowing that suicide is a bit cause of gun related deaths in the US, I wonder if countries with different suicide rates would have fewer gun deaths. Ugh. I just realized I was confusing Argentina with Venezuela before. Why isn't Venezuela on this list? Or places like China and India and African nations? Lack of data? -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:59:49] - paul: in the end, though, the best thing is not to use a human brain. if the number of variables is greater than say 3, you're basically screwed using a human. so then, you need to go to computing. we use something called non-linear least squares (there's no reason your fit needs to be linear), specifically we use the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm (it's sometimes called lm-fit). ~a
[2019-06-25 10:58:13] - a: I think I've also seen scatterplots with different size dots. I guess this feels incomplete to me, since it's hard to compare US vs Japan vs Argentina vs Norway because it doesn't feel like number of guns is the only (or maybe even most important) variable for gun related deaths. -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:54:36] - paul: i actually do this at work a lot. there are multiple methods, but my favorite is #1. 1. use multiple 2d scatterplots (the brain is able to look for the specific scatterplot that is the most "interesting") 2. 3d graph 3. colorized 2d graph (color represents one of the dimensions). 4. combine 2+3 (colorized 3d graph). there's probably others, but that's what comes to mind. ~a
[2019-06-25 10:52:06] - a: Is there an easy way to graph relationships between more than two variables? Like, could we throw in suicide rate or GDP or something? -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:50:46] - a: Oh, gosh, and I can totally see the data behind the scenes being off. How reliable is the data on number of guns in Argentina (I'm guessing gun owners might want to keep that a secret) or even the gun death data (government might want to suppress that). -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:49:33] - a: Yeah, and I can't tell, but just looking at the data it seems like the fit isn't great. Lots of seeming outliers. I wonder what additional variables need to be added to help. Seems like there has to be something akin to societal stability to weed out places like Argentina. -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:49:31] - i guess "goodness of fit" would have been a better link since there is more than one method. i'm using chi-squared on a project right now. ~a
[2019-06-25 10:47:35] - paul: ah yes, that's called goodness of fit. that's a different thing. ~a
[2019-06-25 10:47:15] - a: Yeah, sorry, my... fingers? got ahead of my brain. -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:46:47] - paul: it's a real trendline. maybe you're confused as to what a trendline is? it's *supposed* to fit the data, that's the point. ~a
[2019-06-25 10:46:41] - Scratch that, that's kinda a stupid thing to say. A linear trend-line is always going to look like that. I guess I'm wondering how strong of a correlation there is. The data looks pretty messy. -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:45:41] - I wonder if the trendline in the scatterplot in the headline is an actual trendline or just for show. It seems a little too perfect... -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:33:18] - a: Done. -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:31:05] - paul: can you make this an email so we don't have to bring mark over here? ~a
[2019-06-25 10:29:24] - Oh, I guess I should've left Xpovos off that too... -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:29:03] - a: (and Xpovos and Daniel), I won't be able to play SC2 this Thursday evening because I'm committed to watching the Democratic debate for a podcast episode I'm working on, but I think it would be great if you all wanted to keep the momentum going and meet up without me. -Paul
[2019-06-25 10:24:35] - xpovos: yeah that seems fairly benign. i'm surprised they were so harsh. ~a
[2019-06-24 11:15:57] - a: I posted some song lyrics that were deemed offensive. That might have been OK, but I did it again after a warning (in a different place, though, so not quite as bad as I'm making myself out to be here). Because I was a dumb-shit teen. -- Xpovos
[2019-06-24 11:08:40] - https://medium.com/dailyjs/parseint-mystery-7c4368ef7b21 why ['1', '7', '11'].map(parseInt) returns [1, NaN, 3] in javascript - aaron
[2019-06-23 13:19:13] - why were you banned? ~a
[2019-06-21 16:13:26] - It was one of my first internet communities... and my first forum ban. -- Xpovos
[2019-06-21 16:13:04] - I used to play a bunch of chess. In high school I actually paid to be a member of an internet chess club. I wasn't great, but it was fun. -- Xpovos
[2019-06-21 15:30:54] - understood, thanks. ~a
[2019-06-21 14:45:22] - a: Also depends on the vehicle. I would get antsy having any significant absolute amount of money in something as un-insured as a hot wallet or even cold wallet. I guess I could see a scenario where I let crypto run to 20% of my portfolio before trimming. -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:43:41] - a: How high would I let it ride? Good question. Impossible to say for sure. I imagine part of it probably depends on the circumstances around it. If it seems like a bubbly mania like before (obviously that's easy to say in retrospect), it would probably be different than if major banks are adopting bitcoin or something like that. -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:42:05] - paul: so it sounds like your max is not 5%. it's higher? (i know you're saying you'd just let it ride, but i want to know how far you would let it ride). if say it grew from 2% to 50%, you'd rebalance (sell), right? in your example, that 10k is a fine number, but if it became 200k, you'd rebalance to something else, right? ~a
[2019-06-21 14:41:13] - a: I don't have any crazy risky investment type things so I don't know if I'm a great person to ask. I'd probably not define it as a percentage though. Maybe like here is 10k and with it I will invest in whatever and see how it goes. But I wouldn't keep it as a set percent of a portfolio. -Daniel
[2019-06-21 14:40:35] - a: I'm more willing to let it appreciate mainly because I see it as kinda self-correcting in a way. If it appreciates faster than other assets, then that indicates it's might be becoming more mainstream and less risky (obviously that's not always the case, and every situation is different). -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:38:58] - a: For example, during the bubble, I'm pretty sure my crypto% was over 5%.... although maybe it was close... -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:38:21] - a: Max is a little trickier. If I was just buying today, then I think I might be uncomfortable with anything above 5% (I'm assuming "portfolio" in this sense means your retirement portfolio, but maybe that's a bad assumption). I'm more tolerant of letting any existing cryptocurrency holding appreciate to >5% though. -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:36:38] - a: Personally, I have a high tolerance for risk and a strong desire for diversification, so I would uncomfortable with 0% in cryptocurrency and want some exposure for the 0.001% chance that it takes off as a true digital currency while the US suffers a monetary crisis. In other words, my min would be > 0%. -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:35:19] - a: I would say it depends a lot on your risk tolerance and.... affluence, I guess? Like, if you're barely on track for retirement then the answer would be lower than if you're ahead of the curve. -Paul
[2019-06-21 14:32:59] - daniel/paul: what is the minimum and maximum percentage of my portfolio that i should keep in cryptocurrency? (or any similar ridiculously volatile/experimental/risky investment) i'm looking for some round numbers. 0%-1%? 5%-25%? something like that? i'd like your opinion, but also why you feel that way. ~a
[2019-06-21 13:15:16] - daniel: yes, you have an account. i sent it to you in email. ~a
[2019-06-21 13:03:27] - Daniel: I'm in a similar boat, although I do want to try to get better. Figure it could be fun to have a game ongoing to try to sharpen my skills. -Paul
[2019-06-21 12:54:34] - Paul: I know how to play chess but its not a favorite hobby of mine or anything. -Daniel
[2019-06-21 12:53:16] - a: I think I've asked this before - and maybe have an account - but I'd like to see the pictures and have no idea what (if any) my username and password are. -Daniel
[2019-06-21 11:27:47] - paul: if you want some more ideas ~a
[2019-06-21 11:10:33] - a: I've got some new ideas for my LinkedIn profile pic. -Paul
[2019-06-21 11:09:58] - paul: you're so expressive! ~a
[2019-06-21 11:09:33] - paul: https://aporter.org/pics/password/galway/.thumb/img_1811-m.jpg ~a
[2019-06-21 11:09:26] - paul: https://aporter.org/pics/password/dewey/2008-halloween/.thumb/n6240430_39669769_9173-m.jpg https://aporter.org/pics/password/gurkie/2007/2007%20lv/.thumb/img_4849-m.jpg https://aporter.org/pics/password/lv/people/.thumb/pc100079-m.jpg ~a
[2019-06-21 11:09:03] - paul: here's some more i like https://aporter.org/pics/password/ultimate/.thumb/img_0131-m.jpg https://aporter.org/pics/password/obx/.thumb/img_0382-m.jpg https://aporter.org/pics/password/gurkie/2007/2007%20nye/.thumb/nye%20011-m.jpg https://aporter.org/pics/password/gurkie/2007/2007%20nye/.thumb/nye%20014-m.jpg https://aporter.org/pics/password/pierce/.thumb/2188086069_bb699b0ced_o_d-m.jpg ~a
[2019-06-21 10:55:10] - a: Okay, fine, two good pictures. -Paul
[2019-06-21 10:54:45] - paul: here ~a
[2019-06-21 10:54:12] - Every time I have to set up a profile picture, I struggle to find the one good picture of me that has ever been taken. So.... you'll have to deal with a Rampant Discourse logo for now. -Paul
[2019-06-21 10:48:34] - a: Okay, I think I got the app installed and have logged in. My guess is Gurkie won't be up for playing, but I can ask... -Paul
[2019-06-21 10:40:58] - i also see gurkie there
~a[2019-06-21 10:40:43] - paul: oh looks like travis does play. looking at *your* profile, you played against someone with his sign name. ~a
[2019-06-21 10:39:25] - paul: you have a username already btw (your first initial and last name) and we're already linked. ~a
[2019-06-21 10:37:34] - paul: yes. ~a
[2019-06-21 10:37:05] - a: Cool, installing now. Interested in playing sometime? -Paul
[2019-06-21 10:36:36] - paul: i've paid for their service too . . . something like $1/month and games that run out of time get put into "vacation mode" automatically (eventually you run out of "vacation" days). the service gives you other perks too, but that's the only one i found useful. ~a
[2019-06-21 10:35:03] - paul: i do use an android app to play, yes. https://www.chess.com/ has an android and ios app and the android one is pretty good (ios one might be good too, i dunno). ~a
[2019-06-21 10:33:54] - paul: so like everybody except pierce, daniel, vinnie, travis, and xpovos maybe? and only maybe . . . i'm sure they know how to play, i just haven't played any of them yet? ~a
[2019-06-21 10:33:34] - a: Nice! Wasn't there some android app we used to play against each other before? -Paul
[2019-06-21 10:32:31] - paul: i've played with dewey and miguel. ~a
[2019-06-21 10:32:17] - Random question, but who among our friends play chess? Adrian, Aaron and Dave? Any others? -Paul
[2019-06-20 17:05:23] - hah no. leds can burn out. ~a
[2019-06-20 17:05:11] - By the way, some cool people are going to be playing SC2 tonight if anybody wants to join them. /me looks at Daniel and Miguel -Paul
[2019-06-20 17:04:39] - Aren't these LED bulbs? Shouldn't they not burn out until the apocalypse? -Paul
[2019-06-20 17:04:02] - something like this video?
i'd prefer a ladder. esp since it's something you'll (in many cases) never do. ~a[2019-06-20 16:53:59] - a: Get a ladder? I think a button would be good but I can imagine a use case where its easier to have a reset option that doesn't involve physically interacting with the bulb. -Daniel
[2019-06-20 15:58:21] - daniel: what do you do when a bulb burns out? ~a
[2019-06-20 15:30:39] - paul: "wait... what?". i'd follow that with "can i please speak to the engineers in charge of this design?" and "can i put in my two weeks notice?"
~a[2019-06-20 15:29:40] - -Daniel
[2019-06-20 15:29:38] - a: Some lightbulbs are hard to access - like up above a stairwell or something else that needs a ladder. Thats probably the theory? -Daneil
[2019-06-20 15:04:58] - a: Sure, I guess I'm saying it's probably not the same people. I can imagine some software developers being told to design a factory reset process and then being told there are literally no buttons on the device and they're like, "Wait.... what?". -Paul
[2019-06-20 15:03:13] - paul: right, i'm implying if you design a smart device like this you need a replacement button. if you have a device without a replacement button you've designed it incorrectly and you'll have to do stupid shit like this
~a[2019-06-20 15:02:24] - a: Yeah, but I guess once you don't have one.... what do you do? -Paul
[2019-06-20 15:00:12] - paul/aaron: having a reset button on the device itself makes the most sense here right?! ~a
[2019-06-20 14:59:40] - Wow... I had heard of the video, but after watching it, it's even worse than I imagined. I can't believe anybody thought that video (and the process itself, obviously) was a good idea. -Paul
[2019-06-20 14:56:41] - i can't stop laughing at this. ~a
[2019-06-20 14:56:31] - aaron: omg this is real. i thought this was going to be a joke. ~a
[2019-06-20 14:29:57] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BB6wj6RyKo UPDATED: How to: Reset C by GE Light Bulbs - aaron
[2019-06-20 14:17:05] - paul: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-health-care-policy - mig
[2019-06-20 13:27:20] - a: I've always thought of her as further left (vs centrist) because her policy proposals tend to veer more towards the "extreme" side like heavily taxing the rich in order to make a variety of things free (health care, education, etc). -Paul
[2019-06-20 12:54:51] - that's weird that this word only has one "e" in it considering "center" has two. ~a
[2019-06-20 12:53:57] - paul/mig: what did she do/say that was centerist or non-centerist? ~a
[2019-06-20 12:34:11] - a: Yeah, considering the vigor with which social media companies are into de-platforming people, I am really not that into a cryptocurrency without censorship protection (is that the right phrase?) that Facebook is coming up with. -Paul
[2019-06-20 12:32:29] - mig: Is she a centrist candidate? Or is it that there are so many candidates that they're currently splitting the centrist vote so a low double digit performance by a far left candidate seems high? -Paul
[2019-06-20 12:24:13] - paul/daniel:
the inevitable. (though i think this is a funny response, it would be difficult. i think you'd need to get buy-in from all of the members of the association before you could do this) ~a
[2019-06-20 12:07:11] - i don't know any of the candidates platforms. which warren stances are you referring to? ~a
[2019-06-20 12:05:30] - I’m surprised Warren is emerging as a sort of centrist candidate. I’m wondering if her stances have actually changed or if its just how relatively centrist she is compared to the rest of the field? - mig
[2019-06-19 14:46:02] - go warren!
~a[2019-06-19 14:23:58] - My biggest regret right now is probably underestimating Warren. I figured with her relatively high name recognition, she had probably peaked at the high single digits or whatever she was at, but she keeps steadily rising and is doing what I thought Kamala Harris would do. -Paul
[2019-06-19 14:22:06] - i didn't draft biden because i didn't get a choice. ~a
[2019-06-19 14:18:50] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/democrats-slam-biden-over-comments-on-segregationist-senator.html Among other things, this is why I didn't draft Biden. -Paul
[2019-06-19 10:07:53] - paul: agreed, i don't think it's good or bad for bitcoin. bitcoin will be bitcoin. i don't see this change as increasing or decreasing the volatility. ~a
[2019-06-19 09:51:14] - I'm reading a lot of optimism from bitcoin backers that this support from a major tech company for a cryptocurrency is going to be like a gateway drug introducing billions of people to bitcoin. I'm not sure I see that as likely either. I guess I'm just a sour-puss all around. -Paul
[2019-06-18 17:53:57] - i think lots of people use bitcoin legally inside the united states. so i think you're stuck on the definition of "independence" unnecessarily. ~a
[2019-06-18 17:53:22] - hmmm, maybe you're asking if libra nodes/association count as a bank? or maybe you're asking for a definition of "independence"? ~a
[2019-06-18 17:52:14] - "Is Facebook really independent of central banks" facebook != libra nodes (or more specifiacly in this case, facebook != libra association). so, yes. ~a
[2019-06-18 17:35:51] - So I guess then my next question would be what / who qualifies as a central bank. Does that just mean the Fed essentially or like BofA? Is Facebook really independent of central banks if they are still subject to regulation and are basically just letting you deposit fiat currency created by some central bank? -Daniel
[2019-06-18 17:34:28] - " digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank." Thats what I get when I just google "define cryptocurrency". -Daniel
[2019-06-18 17:12:11] - daniel: the benefit of a token, is you can transact without trusting a central party (though this often means you can launder money). the downside (vs a "coin") is that a central authority controls its creation (sometimes they are "capped" and sometimes they are not). ~a
[2019-06-18 17:12:06] - daniel: this is a cryptocurrency. coinmarketcap separates all cryptocurrencies into "coins" and "tokens". libra would *probably* be a "token". ~a
[2019-06-18 15:47:54] - I guess that begs the question what makes a crypto currency a crypto currency? -Daniel
[2019-06-18 15:47:21] - Paul: Yeah I get that. I guess with the depositing and withdrawing system it just doesn't seem like much of a crypto? I guess the validation / transaction process is different than a traditional bank but if the validating nodes are all run by the libra association is there actually a practical difference? -Daniel
[2019-06-18 15:32:11] - Like, if Facebook just came out and said they were going to become a bank and get into payments, the CEO of Visa would just laugh at the hubris, but now that the magical "crypocurrency" word is being thrown around, it somehow makes it legitimate? Obviously I don't understand. -Paul
[2019-06-18 15:31:17] - I'm not surprised Facebook would want to become a bank. I think they've been wanting to get into payments for years now. I guess what surprises me is that all these other companies are taking them seriously and trying to partner with them instead of dismissing this venture as an insignificant competitor. My only guess is that there's something magical about making it a cryptocurrency (to these people). -Paul
[2019-06-18 15:29:08] - Well I think in the banking industry I think of regulation and the law and kind of the same. KYC. Anti money laundering stuff. Ability to respond to warrants. Initially I thought they were trying to avoid all of that which I wasn't sure how that would work for anyone really (but especially a US company). But since it doesn't appear that they are avoiding it then it just seems odd to basically become a bank. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 15:24:35] - for instance, one way to avoid gambling regulation is to move your businesses to states that allow gambling. is that illegal? no. is it avoiding regulation? yes? ~a
[2019-06-18 15:23:36] - odd? i guess i'm not sure what's so odd about it. avoiding regulation and breaking the law are not the same. i'm not sure if any of your posts address this. ~a
[2019-06-18 15:21:16] - But aside from that yeah it seems a lot like Facebook Bank which seems odd to me as well. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 15:20:22] - Like you've mentioned not wanting the gov to be able to freeze / seize accounts and stuff like that before. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 15:19:49] - a: I guess I translate avoiding centralization to avoiding gov. They aren't exactly the same but seem related in that the gov is currently part of the centralization of financial institutions. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 12:26:47] - a: Maybe. I was highly skeptical before, and remain skeptical, but with the companies they have lined up it deserves to be taken seriously.... I guess. Still not going to buy Facebook stock and don't plan on buying Libra, though, so not sure how it affects my investing. Maybe makes it less likely I buy PayPal? -Paul
[2019-06-18 12:24:21] - paul: we shall see. it could be that they think crypto-currencies are the future? i wish i was being sarcastic, but i'm not.
~a[2019-06-18 12:19:45] - a: I guess? I'm mostly shocked by the companies that want to partner with them. Why would Visa want to associate with a social networking company that has suffered a lot of privacy scandals instead of handling things on their own? I guess they're eager to get access to those juicy FB users somehow? -Paul
[2019-06-18 12:18:32] - they'll be (maybe?) leveraging some of the benefits of crypto. that might be enough? ~a
[2019-06-18 12:14:42] - a: Because it doesn't seem like Facebook is leveraging most of the benefits of crypto. -Paul
[2019-06-18 12:14:15] - I especially don't get why all these companies like Visa and PayPal have partnered up. But considering that they have, it makes sense Mercado Pago is involved. They're a major player in payments in South America and PayPal is an investor. -Paul
[2019-06-18 12:13:12] - "I don't get why crypto is involved" why not? ~a
[2019-06-18 12:12:40] - Yeah, I'm completely baffled by this Libra thing. I knew Facebook was working on some cryptocurrency but assumed it would be a massive flop. Then a few days ago they announce all these partners and now I'm just confused. This seems like FB just getting into banking and I don't get why crypto is involved. -Paul
[2019-06-18 12:10:00] - daniel: "a large goal of crypto is to avoid the gov". nope. avoiding centralization is a bigger deal, imo. otoh, libra is centralized (fairly). ~a
[2019-06-18 12:09:59] - I guess Libra has the goal of being decentralized. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 12:09:36] - Like Libra vs Zelle? Whats the difference? -Daniel
[2019-06-18 12:08:50] - In my head a large goal of crypto is to avoid the gov. So I was just pointing out that I don't think this was achieving that. But maybe its less a goal than I thought. /shrug. You are definitely more the expert than me. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 12:07:36] - a: Oh, yeah, the fact that it started at such a low valuation seemed to indicate to me that this was not a company that was performing well before the deal was announced. -Paul
[2019-06-18 12:07:13] - daniel: "I'm not sure how this step works and avoids regulation" what makes you think they will avoid regulation? almost all (all?) of these crypto companies follow local laws. ~a
[2019-06-18 12:06:51] - no if in that 2nd sentence! oops. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 12:06:33] - Apparently the wallet for libra does require a gov id? So if KYC does apply to actually use it. So... is this just a banking service? Where they keep your interest to cover transaction costs? -Daniel
[2019-06-18 11:51:20] - It seems like an easy argument given its structure where you are paying in currency to get libra that you can cash out later back to currency that you are "depositing" currency and later you are "withdrawing" it. Which seems pretty bank-ish to me. I think if this was a non US company it would make more sense but I'm not sure how a US company is able to keep this up. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 11:49:44] - a: "You’ll pseudonymously buy or cash out your Libra online or at local exchange points like grocery stores" - I'm not sure how this step works and avoids regulation. I guess we'll see but this seems like a hurdle that is glossed over in the first paragraph. -Daniel
[2019-06-18 11:24:49] - facebook announces a new currency. what's meaningful to me here more than anything is their list of partners. it's quite extensive and includes some surprises: visa (!), mastercard (!), paypal, lyft, uber, coinbase/xapo/stripe (crypto companies), ebay, meli (paul!), etc etc. ~a
[2019-06-18 10:20:29] - paul: you know what's interesting about MGI . . . yeah they doubled today, and that's awesome, but if you bought in mid-2017, you might not feel the same.
~a[2019-06-17 17:02:43] - i'm hopeful. ~a
[2019-06-17 17:01:23] - yeah, i gotcha. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:54:28] - a: I'm undeterred. Google maps seems to have fairly accurate listings of speed limits now, and I figured that full self-driving was going to require some combining of the current "advanced cruise control" and GPS assistance. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:52:33] - paul: based on the answers here i'm guessing that either autopilot doesn't know what the speed limit is, or it ignores that speed limit. (i.e. what cruise-control does). maybe in the future that will change, but this is a little bit of evidence in the favor of "self driving cars won't be our saviors"?
~a[2019-06-17 16:49:51] - a: Like, I could see all the data they collect putting upward pressure on speed limits since they can be "trusted" more than human drivers. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:49:27] - a: My guess is that self-driving cars will largely be required to go the speed limit, and that people will largely accept that for the convenience (and safety?) trade-off. I could see speed limits possibly being raised some if there could be data showing it's safe to thanks to self-driving cars. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:48:28] - 100% in after-hours trading. hah wtf. and xrp is (mostly) unchanged. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:47:25] - paul: it'll be interesting to see how things shake out. like at first thought i'm like "their will be zero asshole drivers, and that's nice" but maybe that's too hopeful? will the engineers engineer them to be closer to "real" drivers or closer to "ideal" drivers? asking differently: will tesla autopilot let you drive over the speed limit? i'm guessing it will even though it probably (is required) know the speed limit. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:47:21] - It was "only" up 50% or so when I first heard about it. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:44:13] - a: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MGI?p=MGI&.tsrc=fin-srch Holy crap (related: apparently Ripple is making an investment in MoneyGram). -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:29:09] - a: I'm assuming it will be because by the time they are legalized I have to imagine they'll just be all around so much better at driving than humans. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:27:41] - paul: nah, i'd be happy to lose that competition. probably? i'm not 100% sure that driver-less cars will be better for people on bikes? i'm hopeful though. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:10:59] - a: This is why we need a level 3 self-driving car by 2025, although I know you would prefer it to be later... -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:08:32] - paul: honestly, biking in them is pretty nice. i'd pick a commute through dc on a bike any day. i think maybe it's the familiarity the cars are getting with bikes that makes it the safest (seeming). ~a
[2019-06-17 16:07:32] - a: You'll get no defense of cities or their roads from me. This is why I stay away from them. I hate driving in cities and I hate walking in them. I'm guessing I would hate biking in them too. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:06:22] - yes, city-roads are different. if someone parked in the middle of the sidewalk on massachusetts avenue, people would probably start vandalizing the car right away. it'd be towed by the end of the hour. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:05:07] - a: Hehe, I almost asked for clarification there. Yeah, it could be my unfamiliarity with cities? People do drive fast on West Ox (myself included). Luckily, I don't often feel like I see cars parked on sidewalks there. -Paul
[2019-06-17 16:03:50] - oops drive=ride. sorry, that was a mistake. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:03:25] - paul: maybe this comes down to city-roads vs suburb-roads, but (otoh) one of my least favorite sections to ride is west-ox road. if anybody decided to park on the sidewalk, i'd probably drive *on* west ox road. and, yikes people drive fast on that road. biking on west ox road will probably be my cause of death, so i have no issue calling it "dangerous". ~a
[2019-06-17 16:02:24] - parking in the bike lane is less dangerous than dangling a baby out their window while driving. ~a
[2019-06-17 16:01:44] - Which does back to my original point that I feel like I see "dangerous" activity every day. People run red lights. They jaywalk. They cut off people. It sucks. It's rude. It's illegal in a lot of cases. I'm not excusing it and I wish it didn't happen.... but it's not man bites dog like... somebody dangling a baby out their window while driving?
-Paul[2019-06-17 16:00:27] - paul: ok. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:59:32] - a: I think we just disagree on "significantly" here. I don't feel like these actions are any more dangerous than a lot of other things people do every day like jaywalk or speed up on yellow lights or frankly even just speeding. -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:57:44] - paul: i just replied to that part. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:57:32] - a: Okay, but I feel like I address that with my second part: "In order for it to be significantly dangerous I feel like the car would have to be completely blocking the sidewalk AND there is no bike lane/shoulder. At that point, it doesn't seem equivalent anymore". I guess it could be harder for wheelchairs... -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:57:30] - "completely blocking the sidewalk" i guess in my example i imagined that the person was blocking the sidewalk. maybe i didn't say that specifically, but honestly i'm surprised it should matter. even if they block it a little bit, they're going to force people into the roadway whether it's a required path or not. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:55:38] - paul: "How is parking on the sidewalk significantly dangerous?" oof i don't even know how to begin on this one. some kids and disabled persons walk to school alone / work along sidewalks? kids/disabled persons know how to walk on the sidewalk, and they know about crosswalks, but going out into the road is dangerous? i guess that's the best i can do, but i understand you might disagree? ~a
[2019-06-17 15:54:23] - paul: i know. the pictures i gave you were not inclusive enough. i could not squeeze past (you'll just have to trust me?). otoh, i could have gone on the sidewalk. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:53:30] - a: Because your example (the pictures) it looks like cyclists could squeeze past or go on the sidewalk. Also, as an aside, parking on a sidewalk just feels like a different level since the car has to have found a way to get up the curb and everything. It's one more step on the "ridiculous" scale for me.
-Paul[2019-06-17 15:52:02] - a: I don't see it as "win" or "lose". I'm looking for understanding. How is parking on the sidewalk significantly dangerous? In order for it to be significantly dangerous I feel like the car would have to be completely blocking the sidewalk AND there is no bike lane/shoulder. At that point, it doesn't seem equivalent anymore. -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:50:41] - "Are bike lanes like the one in your photo one-way?" yes. all bike lanes on the street i've ever seen are one way but it gets *very* complicated on which way. you have to look for paint, if there are no arrows you must go the direction traffic is going. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:49:44] - "I guess equivalently dangerous or not" if you want to call parking on the sidewalk as non-dangerous and only-inconvenient, i guess you win this one
~a[2019-06-17 15:48:47] - paul: that's a massive difference yes. i said both. maybe two different answers? ~a
[2019-06-17 15:47:06] - a: Is it driving or parking? Because that's a massive difference, obviously. Parking on the sidewalk seems equivalently inconvenient and rude (and I guess equivalently dangerous or not). Driving on the sidewalk is entirely different. Clarification question for you, though: Are bike lanes like the one in your photo one-way? -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:39:53] - paul: "it seems pretty clearly to be inconvenient and rude" yeah. ok. i'm having a hard time responding to this mostly because i obviously don't have any numbers on "how dangerous is it really". but how about an analogy that we've already seen: would you use the same words about someone driving or parking on a sidewalk? is it "inconvenient and rude"? which words would you use exactly? ~a
[2019-06-17 15:35:27] - a: Yeah, I can easily see a situation where this could directly lead to somebody dying (cyclist goes on the road and is hit and dies). In fact, I'll go one step further and say it probably happens at least once a year or more. But lots of things almost certainly directly cause a few deaths a year like... daylight saving time. I wouldn't call DST "dangerous". -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:33:00] - a: I don't think I ever said it wasn't illegal. I trust you that it's illegal, it seems pretty clearly to be inconvenient and rude. I guess I draw the line at dangerous. What is dangerous? How do we measure it? Dangerous like to the degree going swimming is dangerous? Or driving a car? -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:30:13] - paul: "I guess I'm asking if next time I should just keep my trap shut?" no. as long as i am allowed to call what you say dismissive when it's dismissive, you can say whatever you want. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:29:03] - "And in this instance, I'm saying that blocking a bike lane doesn't seem to me to big a huge life-threatening infraction. You disagree. That's fine" instead of "huge" or "life-threatening" i'll use the neutral word "illegal". or unambiguously more-than-a-matter-of-convenience. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:27:03] - "if I'm going 120 mph on a highway with giant blades on either side of my car, I submit that's worse than blocking a bike lane" i'll agree. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:26:46] - a: Well, you seem mad that I gave a "dismissive" answer. I guess I'm asking if next time I should just keep my trap shut? -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:26:04] - a: And in this instance, I'm saying that blocking a bike lane doesn't seem to me to big a huge life-threatening infraction. You disagree. That's fine. -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:24:32] - a: "infractions against pedestrians and people on bikes are worse." I said "every" infraction. That's THE difference. Sure, we can treat things that put pedestrians/cyclists in danger as worse than things that put drivers in danger. But if I've going 120 mph on a highway with giant blades on either side of my car, I submit that's worse than blocking a bike lane. -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:23:56] - i'm not sure what i did this time. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:22:04] - hmm? ~a
[2019-06-17 15:21:47] - a: I can't think of any answer that I could possibly give that wouldn't end up with us at this exact position or worse.
-Paul[2019-06-17 15:20:52] - paul: "you thinking I hate all cyclists" i didn't suggest that anywhere did i? i didn't think we'd reached that point yet.
~a[2019-06-17 15:20:51] - a: So I tried to go for as neutral a response as possible in asking for information and then even tried to provide the most pro-Adrian response I could think of that wasn't blatant pandering (half jokingly suggesting you call the cops). -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:19:57] - a: I'm being completely honest here: What kind of answer did you want from me? I seriously thought about saying nothing because I feel like it always ultimately ends up with you thinking I hate all cyclists and want them to die no matter how careful I try to be, but I thought ignoring it would be rude. -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:19:53] - paul: yes. infractions against pedestrians and people on bikes are worse. and this isn't just my idea. jurisdictions call them vulnerable road users. and there are laws that protect them. since you can more easily kill a pedestrian, speeding through a school zone is worse than speeding on the highway. and the laws are written as such. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:17:57] - a: Right, but I feel like you're trying to turn what is (in my opinion) a relatively minor infraction into some larger argument about the dangers of biking. Yes, if you get hit by a car that's likely to hurt more than if I get hit by a car with my crumple zones. But does that mean that every infraction against biking is immediately worse? -Paul
[2019-06-17 15:16:38] - paul: true, my obvious solution isn't working. i guess my next solution, would be to post about it online. and hope to get non-dismissive answers? in reality, hmd is a thing that will hopefully take off. jurisdictions like dc are using it to fucking tow people finally. arlington might be next? i've heard rumors. ~a
[2019-06-17 15:15:51] - paul: it is fair. totally fair. we have separate situations and separate laws. pedestrians don't have crumple zones. we protect those people with sidewalks. people on bikes don't have crumple zones. we protect those people with bike lanes. ~a
prev <-> next