prev <-> next
[2019-07-11 12:31:01] - a: Is that likely? Probably not, but in the absence of data I can certainly understand wanting to play it safe. It seems like the same way people say "allegedly" when referring to things that haven't been proven in a court of law yet. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:29:55] - a: Sure, and I get that, but I guess I'm sympathetic to the writer of the article because I'm assuming they don't have much data to go by, which makes the passive voice safer. How would you prefer it written? That a driver drove into some people sitting on a bench? What if they had fallen asleep or suffered a medical emergency? Is it still considered driving into people if they were unconscious? -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:27:29] - paul: no you were right the first time. it's the passive voice. it's deflecting blame. i do have much of a problem with it here. ~a
[2019-07-11 11:58:30] - Speed "may" have been a factor? What BS. I guess it's that they can't make any definitive statements before the investigation, but, yeah. That's awful. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-11 11:30:15] - a: Oh! Your problem is that they aren't naming the driver? Is that what it is? -Paul
[2019-07-11 11:11:12] - "I didn't have much of a problem with it here" i'm not surprised by this. "It sounds like everybody involved is dead or in critical condition, so maybe they don't know what happened yet." the police do know who the driver was and his condition. i don't buy it. it was probably an honest mistake on the part of nbcwashington, but i'm happy people are calling them on it. ~a
[2019-07-11 10:32:30] - a: I'm aware of how passive voice can be used to kinda deflect blame, but I didn't have much of a problem with it here. Maybe they just don't have any information about the driver? It sounds like everybody involved is dead or in critical condition, so maybe they don't know what happened yet. -Paul
[2019-07-11 10:28:33] - i am happy with the comments for once. everybody is like, "where was the driver?" ~a
[2019-07-11 10:27:03] - sitting on a bunch, jesus ~a
[2019-07-11 10:06:28] - Xpovos: I figured it wouldn't be a good match for a few reasons, but I also wasn't sure what else I could do. I'm not the best networker. I've got a few "LinkedIn connections" to people who work at Amazon, but 3 of them are effectively recruiters where that's the only way I know them and the other is somebody who worked at the same company as I did like 10 years ago... -Paul
[2019-07-10 17:30:08] - That's broad. AWS in Herndon.
[2019-07-10 17:29:59] - Anyone know someone in Amazon, I found on there that I'll probably be applying for. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-10 17:29:45] - Paul: Appreciated. I think I *might* qualify for two of those positions, but probably neither well enough to get the job, and then I'd have the whole "ick" factor to get over. Nothing against you or your decisions, of course. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-10 16:02:30] - Xpovos: https://jobs.lever.co/gravyanalytics Here are the open positions where I work. Not sure if you feel qualified and/or if the commute would be tolerable. -Paul
[2019-07-10 15:22:00] - Paul: One that pays and for which I can apply and not get laughed out of the room during the interview. I think that's a reasonably low bar. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-10 14:20:03] - Xpovos: What kind of job? -Paul
[2019-07-10 14:18:11] - I'm going to be actively looking for a new job (again), at least for a while. So if anyone has interesting leads, or a position they think might be interesting, I'd appreciate it if you let me know. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-10 11:23:03] - mig: sorry that was for you actually. (also, i should add that i don't know how *blocking* and *retweeting* interact, but it probably works like we would want in this situation). ~a
[2019-07-10 11:21:51] - paul: no, i doubt it would satisfy the courts because that's the situation we're currently in. there's the @potus account (which i assume isn't blocking anybody), run by the administrations, and it retweets most if not all of @realdonaldtrump tweets (though it's possible the *historical* difference between content is the crux of the case). ~a
[2019-07-10 11:19:32] - paul: but yes it would probably satisfy the courts provided you were keeping official govt announcements off the personal account. - mig
[2019-07-10 10:21:15] - Obama I believe had a potus account which i assume was set up for him by WH staff. - mig
[2019-07-10 10:17:42] - paul: it would but both parties are pretty insistent on using their personal accounts. - mig
[2019-07-10 10:14:24] - mig: The easy solution for the politicians in question is to have an "official" account (ie, "Representative Ocasio-Cortez") and a personal account (ie, "AOC for Realz"). That should solve it, right? -Paul
[2019-07-10 10:13:32] - One thing I wonder is why blocking people on twitter prevents you from seeing their feed when a very obvious workaround (logging out or switching accounts) exists. - mig
[2019-07-10 10:12:12] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/10/ocasio-cortez-faces-lawsuits-blocking-twitter-critics-after-appeals-court-ruling-trump/ kind of curious how this finally ends up being decided in the court. - mig
[2019-07-10 09:39:16] - a: Maybe? -Paul
[2019-07-10 09:21:23] - paul: is it why i come across as super liberal here? ~a
[2019-07-09 23:17:58] - a: That's why I think I often come across as super conservative here. I don't bring up the liberal stuff I believe because I figure we'll all just agree.
-Paul[2019-07-09 23:17:21] - a: I'm surprised as well. Gurkie's sister worked for the ACLU and was involved in some of the social media with the case (I think). My guess is that we haven't discussed it because we probably mostly agree. -Paul
[2019-07-09 19:52:14] - i'm surprised we haven't talked about the 2020 census debate (the citizen question). is it because we all agree that the change is dumb? (why does it take 10 months to print out the forms? i know there are a lot of them, but still, wtf?) ~a
[2019-07-09 12:21:04] - probably not. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:20:52] - a: I don't think that's what the women's team has been advocating when they say equal pay.
-Paul[2019-07-09 12:20:24] - yes and maybe equal pay for equal work would suggest that the women are overpaid. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:20:12] - a: I'm sure that's probably a result of getting far less eyeballs and impressions than they men. -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:19:47] - a: Okay, but from what I can tell all that data doesn't support the point that the women are underpaid. In fact, as I mentioned before, the women seem to get a higher percentage of revenue in terms of payout. -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:18:40] - hmmm. you have other data. about revenue. that's just off the top of my head. you might also have data about women playing against men, but i think that matters less? there's probably loads of other data i'm not thinking about. attendance. numbers of eyeballs. "impressions". ~a
[2019-07-09 12:16:33] - a: What data do we have? We have data that the women are better relative to the women of other countries. -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:16:28] - you have some conclusions you can draw. they won't be foolproof conclusions, but they'll be conclusions regardless. again, this is the statisticians reason for living: this is the nuance you're looking for. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:16:13] - a: If the women's team plays the men's team and wipes the floor with them, we can pretty definitively say that their "work" is better, right? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:15:43] - you do have data. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:15:35] - a: I don't particularly care about court cases here. The courts do stupid things sometimes.
-Paul[2019-07-09 12:15:12] - a: Anyway, this actually almost brings us full circle to my original point. We can't really compare the women's team to the men's team because we don't have the data. Is Rapinoe better than the best male player? We can't really say. That's why we need them to play each other. -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:14:57] - though court cases don't require proof. they only require data. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:14:27] - paul: yes. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:14:13] - a: Exactly, didn't the last part of your statement kinda agree with me that we can't prove causation? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:13:09] - it isn't foolproof, but if you are able to account for shit. you look for common confounding factors and you eliminate the confounding factor from the results. the big problem is you aren't able to get a list of *all* of the confounding factors. it's an unending list. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:11:12] - "people are different" of course. and if i literally say "i paid this person less because of their race" in an email. you got me. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:11:05] - a: "statisticians answer all these hard to answer questions: like i have a bunch of data. how do i see which is correlation and which is causation?" Wait, really? Statisticians can definitively answer what is correlation and what is causation? Color me skeptical. How do they do that? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:10:15] - a: Okay, but there isn't a black Rapinoe because people are different. Not sure I get your analogy. -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:10:08] - statisticians answer all these hard to answer questions: like i have a bunch of data. how do i see which is correlation and which is causation? how do i tell when the black people are paid less because they're black, or how do i tell when the people who are paid less are black? there are statistical ways of answering that question. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:08:36] - paul: another way is with statistics. ask a statistician. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:08:02] - paul: easy (jk, not easy at all). if we can show you paid black rapinoe less because she was black, then you're in violation. *how* do we "show" this? well there are many ways, but one easy way is lots of times people literally say this. in writing. and someone whistleblows. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:06:35] - a: If there's no easy answer, then how do we do equal pay for equal work then? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:06:00] - a: "so rapinoe should get paid as much as someone who provides the same value as rapinoe" Right, and I am asking you how measure that. I submit it's basically impossible to come up with an objective measure. How do you compare a defender and a goalie and players on offense? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:05:42] - paul: no. you're assuming that i have an easy answer for how work (or value) is defined. there isn't an easy answer and (imo) it does take into account supply and demand. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:05:03] - a: And this is all ignoring supply and demand. What if there are dozens of elite goalies but only one Rapinoe? Do we still pay her the same as an elite goalie? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:04:31] - a: Disagree. I'm saying equal pay for equal work isn't nuanced because how do you compare somebody like Rapinoe who scores tons of goals with an elite goalie? How does their "work" compare? -Paul
[2019-07-09 12:04:09] - so rapinoe should get paid as much as someone who provides the same value as rapinoe. . . . white rapinoe should get paid the same amount as black rapinoe. gay rapinoe should get paid the same as straight rapinoe. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:02:51] - the nuance is there, you're just ignoring it. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:02:43] - paul: we're not talking about paying everyone the same. we're (they're) talking about equal pay for equal work. ~a
[2019-07-09 12:02:04] - a: Okay, and I'm no soccer expert, but that seems impossible to objectively measure. Rapinoe is awesome, but a lot of her goals came on penalty kicks. Goalies obviously never would score. How do saves compare to goals? Similar deal with defenders. It's almost as if instead of just paying everybody the same we need some extra nuance.
-Paul[2019-07-09 12:00:18] - paul: yeah i could be wrong, but i'm guessing "work" is defined not as "effort" but as "work product"? like "work output"? like "work (physics)"?
~a[2019-07-09 11:32:22] - a: Okay, so Rapinoe getting paid the same amount as a full time starter who scored no goals and whose team got knocked out in the first round? Or do they have to play the same number of games? I don't think "work" alone should be the measurement. Skill has to play a role too, right? -Paul
[2019-07-09 11:07:13] - paul: equal pay for equal work. so no, they would not advocate for that. (i'm just giving you the line because i don't know what it means either. but i'm pretty clear they wouldn't be advocating equal pay for UNEQUAL work) ~a
[2019-07-09 11:02:19] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/entertainment/aziz-ansari-netflix-special-trnd/index.html This felt like a really weird article to me. It almost seems like the author is unsure if they're just supposed to cover Ansari being back in public or supposed to be covering how he is being "offensive" with his anti-white jokes.
-Paul[2019-07-09 10:53:40] - a: I don't know what "equal pay" means in this context. -Paul
[2019-07-09 10:53:15] - a: Because I certainly don't think that Rapinoe (who scored the most goals in the tournament) should be paid the same amount as.... some random back-up for the Thailand team who barely ever made it on the field. Is that what equal pay proponents would advocate? I'm not trying to be snide, it's a serious question. -Paul
[2019-07-09 10:23:42] - a: I don't know how soccer works, or at least the World Cup since I guess that's what we're specifically talking about here. I guess all players get paid the same amount? Does it depend on how far in the tournament you go or how much you play or how many goals you score? -Paul
[2019-07-09 10:22:32] - a: Well, it kinda depends on what you mean by "should", but sure. In fact, I would be suspicious if the pay was exactly the same. Players are paid wildly different amounts in football and basketball and baseball depending on a wide variety of factors: skill, age, experience, salary cap situation of team, position played.... -Paul
[2019-07-09 10:19:46] - you can imagine scenarios where they should be paid more than the men, though, right? ~a
[2019-07-09 10:16:33] - mig: I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't know enough about the payment structure and everything to say for sure. I'm pretty positive, though, that it shouldn't be as simple as saying "the women should be paid the same amount as the men full stop". -Paul
[2019-07-09 10:06:02] - Expecting USSF to “fix†the perceived disparity thats caused by FIFA seems unreasonable. - mig
[2019-07-09 10:01:22] - mig: But not really being familiar with the numbers or the payment structure. -Paul
[2019-07-09 10:01:02] - mig: Yeah, I have no idea. I suspect it's a case of liking the sound of "equal pay" especially in light of the fact that the women's team is obviously so much better (relative to their competition) than the men's team. -Paul
[2019-07-09 09:56:23] - What do they want USSF to do though? It’s a non profit entity that can only dole out what FIFA gives it w/ regard to world cup payouts. The real beef has got to be with FIFA. - mig
[2019-07-09 09:37:05] - mig: I saw some talk on twitter about how as a percentage of revenue, the women make more from FIFA than the men do (largely because the women's world cup makes so much less money). The retort to that is that the "equal pay" movement is directed at US Soccer and not FIFA. -Paul
[2019-07-08 14:51:06] - as far as the men’s side goes the us viewing market is kind of irrelevant compared to global viewership. - mig
[2019-07-08 14:36:43] - paul: https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cup - mig
[2019-07-08 14:12:00] - mig: I wonder what the worldwide ratings (and, I suppose, the money made off advertisements and such) are for the Women's World Cup vs the men's. I know this past one was bigger in the US than it was for the men's, but that's not surprising consider we didn't even make it to the men's world cup last time. -Paul
[2019-07-08 13:42:59] - I also found some of the details here interesting, such as that the men's team are only paid for games they play while women get a base salary regardless of games played. - mig
[2019-07-08 13:39:59] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men most of the gap can be attributed to the world cup payout structure, which is controlled by FIFA and out of USSF's control. - mig
[2019-07-08 13:12:12] - a: Tell that to the democratic presidential field.
-Paul[2019-07-08 13:11:57] - a: But I was rooting for the USWNT the entire time and loved that they won the World Cup. And I honestly think there's a good chance they could beat the men's team. -Paul
[2019-07-08 13:11:53] - "aren't we supposed to be demonizing the rich here?" no. ~a
[2019-07-08 13:11:09] - a: I'm bothered by this idea that everybody deserves "equal pay" (whatever that means). I'll fully admit to that. I think it's a stupid idea and a vague idea and I suspect many people advocating for it are raging hypocrites since the women are still making like $250k and aren't we supposed to be demonizing the rich here? -Paul
[2019-07-08 13:08:17] - paul: it was a question. i'm guessing. ~a
[2019-07-08 13:07:48] - a: It bothers me that the women's team is doing better than the men's team this year? That's news to me. Is that why I watched the games against the Netherlands and England and replays of their games against France, Sweden and Thailand (along with following the scores live)? -Paul
[2019-07-08 13:05:16] - if anything i think you're offended by this more than anybody. the women's team is doing better than the men's team this year, and that bothers you because they're playing against other women? did someone comment on this and you didn't like the comment? did someone mention their pay? if some AAA team got a lot of air-time, and your local professional team sucked: if this bothers you then do you have your priorities out of wack? ~a
[2019-07-08 11:55:09] - a: Honestly, for somebody to be offended by this, I think it says something about their own biases. I never said anything about girls not being able to play sports, and I find it hard to believe anybody who watched the Women's World Cup would say that, but you brought it up, Why? -Paul
[2019-07-08 11:53:00] - a: And I'm not so sure the women's team would lose. I honestly have no idea. I wish we had more women vs men sports competitions because I feel like we don't really know how they would match-up. I would 100% watch a match between the two. -Paul
[2019-07-08 11:51:35] - a: I don't think that's a fair analogy at all unless... the overweight girl has a modelling contract but is making less than the non-overweight girl and is making a big stink about wanting equal pay. -Paul
[2019-07-08 11:49:54] - ok, then, i'm not sure it's a funny joke. it's a low blow. it's like calling a girl who's overweight that she's fat and then laughing about it. . . . stupid girls and their inability to play sports! "The implied argument is that the women should make as much as the men because they're better. Well, this is saying to prove it on the field." i'm not sure anybody thinks the women's team could beat the men's team, but maybe i'm wrong? ~a
[2019-07-08 11:28:44] - a: Hmmm, I'm not sure if it's intended to be a metaphor? I would label it a joke first and foremost. How is it an unfair metaphor, though? The implied argument is that the women should make as much as the men because they're better. Well, this is saying to prove it on the field. -Paul
[2019-07-08 11:25:24] - paul: it'll be take as whatever the opposite of a "lighthearted jab" is. a heavyhearted jab? a punch below the belt? it's really an unfair metaphor regardless. ~a
[2019-07-08 11:16:12] - a: Okay, so what is the reaction then? Accusations of sexism? -Paul
[2019-07-08 11:15:15] - paul: 0%. ~a
[2019-07-08 11:14:46] - In light of the USWNT's world cup win, I've seen a lot of calls for equal pay. If somebody suggested that the Men's team and Women's team played a match against each other and the winner gets the higher pay, what do you think the chances are that it is received in the spirit it is intended: a light-hearted jab about unequal pay and the Men's team (relatively) sucking? -Paul
[2019-07-08 10:17:30] - paul: or i should say: "yes" . . . that is *one* change. i'm not fully versed on all of the changes. but that's merely one. ~a
[2019-07-08 10:17:29] - a: Got it. Thanks. -Paul
[2019-07-08 10:15:47] - paul: yes. from my second link to miguel: "Under Bush and Obama, parents and children were not routinely separated to pursue criminal prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry". ~a
[2019-07-08 10:13:24] - a: Is the policy change that families are being separated? -Paul
[2019-07-08 09:56:43] - mig: some details on the substance. interesting take, i like this article. ~a
[2019-07-08 09:50:29] - Child separation is definitely a meaner and harsher element of the Trump admins immigration policy. But on the whole I don’t see much daylight between Trump and Obama immigration enforcement on substance, at least until DACA. - mig
[2019-07-07 22:58:47] - paul: its a policy change. It was meant as a deterrent. Before there were limits on how long people could be in the system and policy on how people (unseparated) were treated. New policy is harsher. For deterrence. It's intentional. ~a
[2019-07-05 15:50:52] - To be clear, I'm not trying to point fingers to excuse anything. This kind of of stuff can both be horrible and inexcusable under both administrations. I'm just wondering what percentage of the media coverage this is getting is warranted vs just has to do with political blindspots. -Paul
[2019-07-05 15:49:13] - https://reason.com/2019/06/27/actually-joe-biden-and-the-obama-administration-deported-more-people-than-trump/ I've seen numbers indicating the Obama administration deported more people than Trump, but I don't know if there is any context that might help color things. -Paul
[2019-07-05 15:48:29] - https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1146045973535309825 I've seen enough of this on the internet to suspect there has to be some significant fire to go along with all of this smoke. Does anybody know of any hard numbers around family separation and deportations under Obama vs Trump? -Paul
[2019-07-03 10:47:41] - a: USB-C currently, but I have also had the problem with other types of USB as well. It hasn't been as bad with USB-C, but still pops up on occasion. -Paul
[2019-07-03 10:46:56] - paul: usb-b or usb-c? ~a
[2019-07-03 09:43:36] - I've had similar situations with cables when charging in my car as well. I'm pretty sure it's not the port on my phone, because I have some cables which work perfectly fine. -Paul
[2019-07-03 09:42:04] - Anybody here have an issue with some USB cables not consistently staying plugged in to their phones for charging? I've had a few times I've woken up in the morning to find my phone sitting at 20% charge because the cable got disconnected overnight and didn't charge my phone. -Paul
[2019-07-02 10:44:53] - Daniel: Yeah, although they're honestly a little hit or miss with the training wheels too. -Paul
[2019-07-02 10:44:15] - Paul: Real bike with no training wheels? We haven't done that yet either. -Daniel
[2019-07-02 10:39:13] - Daniel: Wow, nice! Quick learner. I need to get back to teaching my kids how to ride a bike.
-Paul[2019-07-02 10:37:40] - -Daniel
[2019-07-02 10:37:37] - Paul: She did! She fell a bunch at first but by the end she was skating without holding anyone's hand or the wall. It was pretty cool to watch her figure it out. We ended up signing her up for a six week basics course that runs through the summer. We'll see how she likes it by the end. -Daneil
[2019-07-02 10:31:37] - Daniel: Did she enjoy it? -Paul
[2019-07-02 09:40:18] - Hey birthday message! It was a good birthday weekend
I went go karting, saw the re-release of endgame, and took Alex ice skating for her first time. -Daniel[2019-07-01 14:24:16] - Paul: And I was probably not articulate. Or maybe I'm just wrong. Equally possible. Regardless, I'm going to stand by my statement that she wasn't as effective as I wanted her to be/as I feel she needed to be. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-01 13:28:21] - Xpovos: Ah, okay. I misunderstood, then. I guess I equated mentioning it a lot with effectiveness.
-Paul[2019-07-01 12:35:55] - Paul: Maybe my comment was misleading then. I think, out of all her speaking time, she mentioned her service a sufficient amount/number of times/volume per minute of air. But the tone with which she talked about it wasn't as on-point as I'd have expected given her strengths. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-01 11:20:18] - Xpovos: While editing, though, I did go back and listen to some of what Gabbard said and two things struck me: (1) I didn't realize just how much she completely ignored the first question and (2) I think she mentioned her military service a lot more than you think she did. -Paul
[2019-07-01 11:19:23] - Xpovos: I did no such thing, and read a lot of analysis before we spoke to make sure I didn't miss anything, so it might not be surprising that my thoughts matched (although my notes were mostly based on my live-tweets, which I did real-time and without reading other opinions). -Paul
[2019-07-01 11:17:33] - Paul: I avoided listening to/reading much analysis before we spoke, but I've been digging in since. It's interesting to hear how a more mainstream take on the whole debate situation is so different from ours--while acknowledging the same basic facts and pointing out the same big moments. --Xpovos
[2019-07-01 10:17:20] - a: Looks like you made up a lot of ground in 2018Q3, but I won in the end? Now I'm up 2-1 over you and we're a combined 6-0 against Daniel?
-Paul[2019-07-01 10:15:24] - https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination Kamala Harris now tops this prediction market for winning the nomination. -Paul
[2019-06-27 17:08:30] - aDaniel: Hope you two (and more) play SC2 tonight! I've been practicing against the AI when time allows.
I hope to be less crappy next time. -Paul[2019-06-27 17:08:03] - Daniel: Sounds about right. -Paul
[2019-06-27 16:51:22] - Also didn't I already arbitrate some ruling with Andrew early on? For Pence or something? -Daniel
[2019-06-27 16:50:25] - I'm still not interested in being part of the scoring and drafting but if you are asking about major networks I can still make suggestions! -Daniel
[2019-06-27 16:37:18] - daniel/paul: i added pbs. look over the language, (xpovos too) and make sure you're ok with it. if you're not ok with it, just change it. ~a
[2019-06-27 16:36:40] - Daniel: I want to be snotty and say that if you want to provide input, then you should've joined our draft, but PBS is a good suggestion.
-Paul[2019-06-27 16:36:07] - a: Thanks for finishing what I started.
I was going to do that but got distracted with an email. -Paul[2019-06-27 16:35:20] - Did PBS host any debates last time? Maybe just one of their anchors hosted a debate on some other network... -Daniel
[2019-06-27 16:34:59] - paul: yay i'm winning! scroll down on your new sheet. ~a
[2019-06-27 16:34:51] - PBS. -Daniel
[2019-06-27 16:27:03] - a: Sure, we can add those. I don't have a good sense of how often major debates are held solely on cable news channels like CNBC. -Paul
[2019-06-27 16:24:35] - fox business? ~a
[2019-06-27 16:23:48] - paul: yes, i was basically drafting *that*. be careful of "others" though. we should specify which others. i'd add msnbc, cnbc. maybe that's it? i don't know much about cable news honestly. are all of those "high profile" news networks and have we missed any? specifically i think "netflix" and "youtube" and "hulu" and "amazon prime" should be left off (for 2019-2020 anyways). ~a
[2019-06-27 16:20:53] - a: I would argue that the debate has to be on a "major" network (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, FoxNews, others?) and that there isn't a clear "front-runners" vs "laggards" split. -Paul
[2019-06-27 16:14:56] - though we should probably agree now as to what qualifies as "high-profile". maybe decide which networks "count" and which do not? ~a
[2019-06-27 16:14:32] - paul: yes. ~a
[2019-06-27 15:54:25] - aXpovos: Oh! I guess we can score the debates for our presidential candidate draft. Can we agree that last night's and tonight's are "high-profile" debates? -Paul
[2019-06-27 15:38:33] - a: Btw, I did a preliminary check of the Freedom Portfolio for Q2. Another good quarter. FP up 8.5% in the quarter vs 3.8% for S&P(TR). Since inception? FP up 6.3% vs 1.7% for S&P(TR). -Paul
[2019-06-27 15:36:56] - a: Yup. I had one of my numbers wrong. I had 5,035.45 as the March close for TR. Thanks for the correction. -Paul
[2019-06-27 15:31:22] - paul: according to yahoo finance, the TR return (dividends) for 2019q1 is 5664.46/4984.22 (december close vs march close). the nonTR return (no dividends) is 2834.40/2506.85 (december close vs march close). looks like, as expected, TR is higher. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:50:45] - a: Hmmm, okay. Maybe it's a timing thing, because I see the total return slightly under-performing in 2019Q1. -Paul
[2019-06-27 14:48:39] - paul: uh, no, i doubt it. dividends can't be negative so the timing shouldn't matter. if you're using two different methods for including dividends (manually -vs- TR), then that could account for a difference. otherwise, no, i don't think so. do you have an example? ~a
[2019-06-27 14:34:11] - a: Sanity check: The return for the TR version of S&P can be lower for a given quarter than the return of the non-TR S&P because of timing of dividends, right? -Paul
[2019-06-27 14:28:24] - also yahoo's API was closed down a few years ago. so that kinda limited me some. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:27:33] - i don't know. try yahoo if google fails. try google if yahoo fails. that's been my MO. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:23:06] - a: Can I not get historical values for sp500tr on google finance? -Paul
[2019-06-27 14:14:39] - paul: i know i've probably mentioned this before, but another way to "track" these things is to use the "adjusted" closing price. the way that works is the "adjusted" closing price for today is the same as the normal closing price for today. but historical closing prices are adjusted for BOTH splits and dividends. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:14:14] - paul: i guess. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:13:21] - a: I figure it has to be the index or else your ratio of companies would become unbalanced over time. -Paul
[2019-06-27 14:10:41] - paul: either would be fine. i'd assume they'd opt for the first one. but . . . either way would be reasonable. hell, i could imagine a hybrid system, but that's even less likely. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:08:48] - paul: "As reinvestment into the index as a whole or the stock it came from?" i don't know. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:05:21] - a: How does it handle the dividends? As reinvestment into the index as a whole or the stock it came from? -Paul
[2019-06-27 14:04:31] - paul: YES! i use "s&p total return" (sp500tr on google finance and ^sp500tr on yahoo finance). it CORRECTLY applies the dividends when they're paid out so it's more-correct than the (hacky but "close") dividend calculation we use with the fantasy investing spreadsheets. ~a
[2019-06-27 14:02:27] - a: Anyway, for other things (like the performance of individual positions vs the market), I either do some manual calculations or I use what the Fool provides on their scorecard. Their scorecard was basically down for months so I didn't have access to it last quarter, but I should have it once again this time around. -Paul
[2019-06-27 14:01:33] - a: So it includes dividends and whatnot (which, to your point, are pretty not relevant). For the S&P, I use the value of the S&P according to yahoo finance the last day the market is open. I guess that doesn't include dividends? That's frustrating, and I'm not sure how to deal with that. Is there an index I can use which counts dividends without having a management fee? Should I just use VTSAX or something? -Paul
[2019-06-27 13:59:45] - a: Well, with regard to the Freedom Portfolio vs the market.... it's a mess. For the straight up comparison of how the overall portfolio is doing against the S&P, I use the value of the portfolio the day the last day the market was open (so including the few dollars I have sitting around) versus the value last check-in. -Paul
[2019-06-27 13:57:05] - it's cool that your API is pulling that info though. i think you told me that and i forgot. ~a
[2019-06-27 13:55:09] - paul: i guess i meant both. "the market" that you're measuring against, gets an extra ~2%/year extra bump. and most of the "paul" stocks seem to get ~0%/year. so that seems to matter. in the past, that 2% was closer to 4%. link. ~a
[2019-06-27 13:52:54] - a: For the 2019 fantasy investing competition? I'm certainly trying to, but I've noticed a few times where the dividends from the API I am using seemed wrong. -Paul
[2019-06-27 13:51:34] - paul: i know i could just go back and read through stuff, but i wanted to just ask you because i'm lazy. you're counting dividends, right? only matters if things are within a percent or three, but i know there have been times (2018!) where things were within a percent or three. ~a
[2019-06-27 13:48:50] - a: I'm excited to run the numbers on the Freedom Portfolio after close tomorrow. I think I had another quarter where I beat the market. -Paul
[2019-06-27 13:32:58] - paul: yes the one that ends in MVQ. i'll send you the money after close tomorrow. ~a
[2019-06-27 13:31:52] - we called it q3 because it started in q3? ~a
[2019-06-27 13:31:50] - a: But if I do end up winning, I guess I'll take it in bits. Do you still have my cold wallet address? -Paul
[2019-06-27 13:31:26] - a: The stock market challenge? Odd that we called it Q3... You've still got a few days to close that 6 percentage point gap. All it would take is some consolidation in the chip space and somebody buying AMD...
-Paul[2019-06-27 13:29:10] - paul: end of q2 is this weekend! did you decide if you wanted venmo or bits? or cash or check? ~a
[2019-06-27 12:27:01] - paul: just found out that the mueller report discusses the bits some. apparently the russian hackers were using them to do their operations and chain analysis was involved in the investigation? pages 36,37,41. (section III). they even blacked out a few of these sections on pages 36 (bottom of non-footnotes) and 37 (footnote #113). ~a
[2019-06-27 11:22:47] - a: Worst part is hearing Chuck Todd have to repeat his already overly long gun control question *in full* three times because of it. -Paul
[2019-06-27 11:22:03] - a: Oh, yeah, that was really unfortunate timing for you. It was hands down the worst 10 minutes or so of the debate. -Paul
[2019-06-27 11:21:05] - i only watched like 10 minutes of the debate, but in those 10 minutes i was forced to watch that part with all the people with the hot-mics. i was so angry at that part. they kept calling to the "control room". but, how about, instead, finding the dummies with the hot-mics and being like: hey DUMMIES how about we STOP TALKING. it went on for *way* too long. ~a
[2019-06-27 11:08:56] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/27/who-were-viewers-googling-during-first-democratic-debate-booker-gabbard/ Heh, and it looks like Wapo turned off the ability to read articles in incognito mode now. Anyway, apparently people were Googling Booker and Gabbard after the debate. I consider that a win! -Paul
[2019-06-27 10:59:23] - paul: right that's fair, and i agree they're different, but if you're looking for a line, *a* line is copyright. if you're breaking copyright that's a line. ~a
[2019-06-27 10:45:31] - a: I guess my point is that a song and a news article doesn't seem that different to me, and circumventing a paywall to read an article doesn't seem too different from downloading an MP3. I agree that it's a little different, just hard to know where excctly the line is. -Paul
[2019-06-27 10:40:14] - paul: well one line is copyright infringement. if they're literally copying the content, and republishing it (!), without permission, it's less of a grey area. ~a
[2019-06-27 10:34:15] - a: But in some ways, it doesn't feel that different from illegal MP3s and whatnot, which does seem like another level of wrong. -Paul
[2019-06-27 10:33:04] - a: Heh, great minds! Yeah, I largely don't have a problem with legal attempts to circumvent stuff like that. I wouldn't avert my eyes if somebody reposted some fantasy football rankings, and I might even seek them out sometimes. -Paul
[2019-06-27 10:32:51] - yeah i mentioned newspaper paywalls and hbo paywalls in my last comment too
~a[2019-06-27 10:32:04] - a: "though i could maybe see some grey area. again if i were to see this information, i probably would avert my eyes" Yeah, I see it as a HUGE grey area. I mean, I don't feel bad at all trying to get around paywalls for places like Washington Post. For example, when I get their message saying I've reached my free article limit, I just view it in incognito mode. -Paul
[2019-06-27 10:31:45] - paul: another grey-ish area is newspaper paywalls. mostly because the paywalls are nefarious: they let *you* read the article even though you aren't a customer, but if you try to share it with someone, all of a sudden *they* can't read it. their paywalls are trying to get people hooked on the content, and *then* they want your money. hbo's ceo said that they want people to share account information. so much grey area. ~a
[2019-06-27 10:29:35] - paul: "Do you think it's different depending on which side you are on?" yes completely. it's neither immoral/unethical nor illegal to receive this information, though i could maybe see some grey area. again if i were to see this information, i probably would avert my eyes, and i wouldn't seek out the information, but i don't ask anyone else to do the same. ~a
[2019-06-27 10:20:38] - Anybody here watch the debate last night? I oftentimes think that analysts get it wrong in the aftermath of debates, but it does seem like a few of my picks did well (Castro, Booker, Gabbard). -Paul
[2019-06-27 09:30:05] - a: For whatever reason I think of the former as much worse (from an ethical standpoint) than the latter. I guess because there seems to be an implied contract as a subscriber that you won't share, but the non-subscriber is under no such restriction. -Paul
[2019-06-27 09:29:26] - a: I forgot to add (B) in front of the non-subscriber part. Do you think it's different depending on which side you are on? -Paul
[2019-06-26 22:59:44] - paul: it's probably morally/ethically a grey area. i wouldn't do it myself, but i don't think i'd judge someone else who did it. legally, it's probably a grey area too. assuming you don't break copyright law, it'll probably be an (unenforceable?) terms of service that you'll be breaking. not exactly a contract. ~a
[2019-06-26 17:13:50] - (A) How wrong is it, as a subscriber of that service, to share that information with non-subscribers? Morally wrong? Legally wrong? Ethically wrong? How wrong is it as a non-subscriber to seek out a way to gain that knowledge without paying? I'm not talking about hacking into computers, but more just seeing if any subscribers are sharing the info anywhere. -Paul
[2019-06-26 17:11:58] - Oh! I forgot that I had a... moral question? to pose to the message board: Let's say there is some company which sells access to their expertise. For example: some fantasy football expert who you can get access to his rankings by subscribing to his service, or something like the Motley Fool where you subscribe to get stock picks... -Paul
[2019-06-26 17:03:51] - Xpovos: Right, and that's another good point. Nearly all proposed actions seem to involve the government doing something. There are other ways of trying to enact change as well. -Paul
[2019-06-26 16:43:42] - Paul: They way it's being done now is through doctor and family intervention. Any kind of governmental action is bound to fail, and probably backfire. -- Xpovos
[2019-06-26 14:25:26] - paul: no. ~a
[2019-06-26 14:14:08] - a: https://www.coindesk.com/square-is-expanding-access-to-bitcoin-deposits-for-cash-app-users You ever use the cash app to buy/sell btc? -Paul
[2019-06-26 14:13:32] - Xpovos: Yeah, I totally buy the idea that keeping guns out of the hands of depressed / suicidal people would make a sizable impact on gun deaths (specifically suicides), but I just don't know how you go about doing that in any way that doesn't trample civil rights. -Paul
[2019-06-26 13:51:56] - It's widely accepted that someone with high-level suicidal ideation, with a gun in the house, is at substantially higher risk of death than without a gun. And that mostly has to do with the proximity and the lethality. So, it's generally a good practice to remove guns from those households, if you can--and you're interested in saving lives. -- Xpovos
[2019-06-26 13:50:35] - Guns and suicide are closely linked because of three factors: ease of access, because they are common, ease of access, because it allows brooding to point to a specific actionable plan, and lethality. When the suicide plan by gun is enacted, it usually works, whereas other forms have higher failure rates and allow more opportunities for intervention. -- Xpovos
[2019-06-26 13:49:13] - On suicide, and gun deaths. It's important to note a few factors. 1) Suicidal ideation is farily common in a wide range of depressions. The ideation itself isn't necessarily harmful, it's a representation of the existing problem, rather than a problem itself. It becomes harmful when coupled with specificity. That is, "I want to kill myself, AND I have a plan on how to engage that action." -- Xpovos
[2019-06-26 13:18:23] - a: Thanks! -Paul
[2019-06-26 12:53:18] - i'd ask aaron if he doesn't reply here. i think he's the one that's used it the most? ~a
[2019-06-26 12:51:59] - I'm assuming nobody here has a firm grasp on how twitter threads work? I'm planning on live-tweeting the democratic debate tonight but don't want to flood my followers' timelines if they're not interested. My solution is to make it a single thread where I keep replying to my original tweet. Only problem is I've seen in the past where sometimes twitter breaks those out too. -Paul
[2019-06-26 12:03:37] - a: Yeah, but when did it go from super sketchy hax0r thing that people use on the dark web to buy heroin to.... something that just might work as a legit digital currency and have funds investing in it? Likely well after $0.80 -Paul
[2019-06-26 12:01:39] - paul: understood. that's probably true. 2011 was pretty "late" to have heard about it (i read about it on slashdot more than once before 2011). it was pretty easy to dismiss in 2010. 2011 it started getting harder. but again, the price was ~$0.80 when i started talking about it here. ~a
[2019-06-26 11:58:50] - a: I legitimately have no idea if I heard about bitcoin first from you, or by reading something from the crazy libertarians I read (like Reason Magazine). -Paul
[2019-06-26 11:56:56] - paul: ha! let's look back at the video tape. "[2011-03-23 05:03:31] - wow, decentralized banking? never would have thought of it. bitcoin" 1btc=~$0.80. of course you could argue that you still "barely even knew about it" but click on that date/time link anyways. who was the first person to reply to me?
~a[2019-06-26 11:50:47] - a: But when it was at $3k, I definitely knew about it and still mostly believed in its potential... just was going through a bit of a cash crunch at the time.
-Paul[2019-06-26 11:50:14] - a: Fair, but back when it was $3 I'm guessing I barely even know about it, let alone how to buy. -Paul
[2019-06-26 11:24:57] - paul: i should've bought more when it was at $3. (actually) i'm pretty happy with how things turned out. ~a
[2019-06-26 11:23:44] - a: I wish I was near the limit where I would consider trimming. Bitcoin has a ways to go still before I worry about that. Guess I should've bought more when it was at $3k.
-Paul[2019-06-26 11:21:21] - paul: yep. it's why i was asking you that question last week. the last few months i've been trying to decide how much to trim and how and when. ~a
[2019-06-26 10:45:21] - btw, bitcoin is almost at $13k!? -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:44:54] - And we can argue whether those differences are good or bad, but the fact remains that lots of stuff are fine and even expected overseas that would never fly here, and vice versa. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:43:37] - We have vastly different social safety nets. We also have largely had the "best" economy for decades now and largely lead in terms of innovation. We also tend to police the world and the dollar is the reserve currency and... I'm getting a little off topic now. Anyway, TLDR, we're different.
-Paul[2019-06-26 10:41:52] - We're different from a lot of other "developed" countries in a lot of ways. We typically have much more robust protections on freedom of speech than European countries do. We have a lot more guns. We are generally less homogenous in terms of race relative to a lot of other "developed" nations... -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:40:31] - Daniel: Ah, yes. I guess one more point I would make is that I sometimes think people downplay differences in countries too much, like pointing out how "Australia banned guns, why can't we?" and "Japan has like no guns deaths, why can't we?". I think sometimes there are big cultural differences that make countries significantly different from each other. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:38:17] - Paul: Fair to question the idea of prohibiting X as a viable tactic given our track record with prohibition and the drug war. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 10:37:28] - Paul: I would certainly agree that putting more effort on the WHY would be a beneficial thing. I don't that putting more effort on the WHY precludes efforts elsewhere either though - without trying to go back to that part of the discussion. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 10:36:41] - Daniel: "I think its fair to question" What is a fair question? Whether the US could ban blanket guns? -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:36:02] - Daniel: Hence why I brought up things like ending the drug war (prohibition tends to cause increases in violence due to black markets). I don't have any good suggestions for reducing suicides, but maybe more spending on mental health care? -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:34:30] - Daniel: And yeah, guns make suicides more "effective" and also allow murderers to kill more people, but considering the mixed success we've had regulating guns, I think it might be time to take a look at WHY people are killing themselves and others instead of how they're doing it. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:33:34] - Daniel: I think there's too much focus on the "how" instead of the "why". You give me a gun, I'm not suddenly going to go out and shoot a bunch of people. Likewise, if you take a gun away from a suicidal person, I suspect there's a good chance they still end up trying to kill themselves. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:33:20] - Paul: I think its fair to question. I certainly don't think it could / would happen in a quick timeframe. I think if other countries manage to do it then it ought to be possible in the long term but its hard to say since it would require culture change over time I think. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 10:32:04] - So maybe a goal of "reducing tragedies" instead of "saving lives" would focus more on violent gun deaths. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 10:31:50] - Daniel: Sure, it would probably play out differently. Drugs are also consumable, though, so you constantly have to bring in more, whereas guns basically last forever. I just look at all these attempts to register guns and how we get such low compliance and I look at the history of things like prohibition and am doubtful we could effectively ban guns in any meaningful way. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:30:40] - I think the idea of savings lives is "good" but there is a lot of room in "saving lives" to determine the best way towards that goal. Its hard to judge though. Would better dietary understanding / science so that we could better recommend a healthy diet save more lives than anything gun related? Gun deaths do stand out as more violent tragedies where A is killed by B suddenly instead of A killing themself slowly over time. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 10:28:48] - Paul: I don't want to speak for a but I get the idea of the tradeoffs. I think the drug war seems like a fairly good analogy. I don't know if it would play out the same as guns but maybe. Guns are metal (mostly) and more distinct than amorphous powder or plants. Its easier to grow something than to machine something? Maybe...? I think so but I guess I'm not an expert on that. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 10:25:59] - I still like my shotguns, revolvers, and bolt action rifle plan
-Daniel[2019-06-26 10:05:33] - Yeah, I get that these are just one off stories, and it's hard to tell how often they would happen, but it's also hard to tell how much a lot of these laws would help in terms of preventing bad stuff from happening. So many guns are unregistered and there is so much disagreement around the data. We're not even talking about defensive gun uses. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:04:06] - Daniel: https://reason.com/2014/08/13/jacob-sullum-on-shaneen-allen-a-pennsylv/ Or make laws around possession so harsh that single moms face years in jail for an honest mistake. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:03:28] - Daniel: https://freebeacon.com/issues/new-jersey-woman-stabbed-to-death-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit/ We could make acquiring a gun legally be an incredibly long and difficult process so that women are left without protection from their ex-boyfriends. -Paul
[2019-06-26 10:00:16] - Daniel: And I just have a hard time envisioning any law focused around guns that would meaningfully restrict gun deaths AND be worth whatever trade-off I think is likely. We could try to ban all guns and confiscate them all and likely have a bloody couple of years and develop a black market of well-armed smugglers... -Paul
[2019-06-26 09:57:36] - Daniel: It's a similar thing with drugs. Yeah, they can ruin lives and are in many cases harmful, but I think we're starting to come to the realization as a society that our attempts to ban them (the war on drugs) just might be causing more harm than it is worth. That's another form of trade-off. -Paul
[2019-06-26 09:56:16] - Daniel: But we've "decided" (somehow, as a society) that the convenience that cars provide outweighs the dangers they pose and we've decided pools are fun enough and less enough people die in them that we allow them. -Paul
[2019-06-26 09:55:16] - Daniel: Agreed! I think it's easy to say things like "if even one person is saved it is worth it" or talk about how preventable deaths are, but I just don't know how useful that kind of thinking is because it is all about trade-offs. We can almost certainly save thousands of lives by banning cars or save hundreds by banning pools... -Paul
[2019-06-26 09:52:43] - I don't want to derail the a/paul conversation but I think the statement "The question (to me, at least) is if it's worth the trade-off" is interesting and is probably part of the disagreement between you two. I think the question of what you each consider the tradeoffs would be interesting. -Daniel
[2019-06-26 09:20:23] - a: Well, if that's true, then if you plotted gun homicides vs gun deaths (which I think you did), the US would look even better comparatively, right? We start to get a better picture of how, in some ways, suicide might be a bigger cause of the problem than guns. -Paul
[2019-06-26 09:17:51] - a: are you proposing world-wise changes? Or just USA, which is a HDI? -- Xpovos
[2019-06-26 06:48:28] - paul: "suicides being the majority of gun deaths" this is only true in high hdi countries. it's def not true worldwide. ~a
[2019-06-25 17:02:03] - a: Sure, I get the big difference is that guns can kill other people in a way drugs largely don't (although it does get messy with suicides being the majority of gun deaths and drugs sometimes indirectly leading to violence against others), but that doesn't seem to significantly change the calculus of it being a deadly thing that people want to ban but have trouble doing it. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:59:53] - a: You can even make comparisons about how drugs kill people and those deaths are preventable and we can prevent SOME of those deaths with some laws and eventually everybody will know somebody who's died by drugs and then will policies change? -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:58:45] - a: How about this analogy: What makes guns so different from drugs? I think we've proven as a country that no matter how hard we try, there are certain things we can't prevent people from getting their hands on: Alcohol, Drugs, and Guns? -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:56:30] - a: https://reason.com/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ and https://reason.com/2018/12/20/new-jerseys-gun-owners-do-not-seem-eager/ Gun registration doesn't have a great compliance rate in the US either. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:54:36] - a: "close some loopholes" I'm surprised you didn't mention "common sense" laws as well.
I can't really respond to "every other developed nation's gun laws", but I guess I'm just not convinced all countries can be treated the same. We've already established the US is a huge outlier in terms of gun ownership. Most laws deal with new gun sales. -Paul[2019-06-25 16:50:29] - by looking at every developed nation except one, and make our laws more like theirs. specifically: mandate registration. close some loopholes. politically charged action for sure, but to say these deaths aren't preventable is lazy and a waste of life. eventually everybody will know somebody who's died by a gun, then policies will change? ~a
[2019-06-25 16:40:45] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country If wikipedia is to be believed, there are like 400x as many unregistered guns in the US vs registered. If we can't even get people to register their guns, how we do confiscate them? -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:39:04] - a: Right, but any number of things will prevent "some" deaths. That's a not very helpful metric. Like I said, banning swimming pools will prevent some deaths. The question (to me, at least) is if it's worth the trade-off. Also, if it's even possible. Half my point is that we simply can't get rid of all guns or come even close. -Paul
[2019-06-25 16:35:47] - getting rid of guns isn't going to stop all suicides / getting rid of guns isn't going to stop all homicides. getting rid of guns isn't going to stop all deaths. none of these things matter. getting rid of guns is going to stop some suicides, some homicides, and some deaths. those that believe otherwise haven't looked at the data. ~a
prev <-> next