prev <-> next
[2019-09-26 15:57:37] - vnq. ~a
[2019-09-26 15:56:53] - sure, i do. not much. probably like 1%. ~a
[2019-09-26 15:56:35] - aDaniel: Do either of you guys have any REIT ETFs or funds? I feel like I've asked this before. -Paul
[2019-09-26 13:24:36] - i would NEVER ~a
[2019-09-26 13:24:09] - a: Don't forget your laptop! -Paul
[2019-09-26 13:23:09] - paul: i'm in for sc2 today. ~a
[2019-09-26 13:23:04] - hi, sorry, power was down this morning. ~a
[2019-09-26 08:44:36] - paul: in. ~a
[2019-09-25 12:25:35] - SC2 tomorrow? -Paul
[2019-09-25 11:46:11] - a: agree with Paul. There doesnt seem to be explicit quid-pro-quos in the transcript, so I think republicans probably won’t be swayed. - mig
[2019-09-25 10:16:11] - a: Maybe. I'm sticking to 20%. Still feels like the Republican congressmen are largely sticking to their guns. -Paul
[2019-09-25 10:13:08] - paul: monday you and i said the chance of impeachment (in the house) was 20%. i think news yesterday broke that probably increases that estimate some. ~a
[2019-09-25 10:03:52] - a: What 20% estimate? -Paul
[2019-09-24 18:16:53] - yeah looks like that 20% estimate has probably changed. ~a
[2019-09-24 16:58:01] - mig: It's interesting, but I wonder what this does to the Republican primary if all of this goes through and he actually gets removed. Could we see a Weld/Walsh/Sanford get nominated as a candidate? -Paul
[2019-09-24 16:34:33] - It's probably the closest I think we'll get to an impeachment push that might get some bipartisan support. - mig
[2019-09-24 16:31:45] - paul: it wouldn't surprise me that it wouldn't have anything to due with mueller and russia. the guy participates in like 6 unconstitutional things per week. mostly i'm surprised and dismayed he got this far. ~a
[2019-09-24 15:21:51] - How crazy would it be that, after all this stuff with the Mueller report and Russian collusion and secret meetings and whatever else... that it's a phone call with Ukraine that does Trump in?
-Paul[2019-09-24 13:59:37] - https://paulvsthemarket.com/taking-a-risk-on-shopify/ Shopify is right back to around where it was when I wrote this 3 months ago. If you had told me then that Shopify would just be a few percentage points down, I would've been pleased. But now I'm feeling less than pleased.
-Paul[2019-09-24 13:56:29] - but we COULD make such a plan. 1000% of your income, and 50% of your wealth will be taxed every year, if you make over 1m/year or have a wealth of over 1b. also, if your last name has a "Z" in it, that's a paddlin. ~a
[2019-09-24 13:52:02] - a: And even Sanders' insane wealth tax plan wouldn't immediately end somebody like Bezos as a billionaire. It's a statement that, to me, speaks to people who only want to see the wealthy punished and brought down and doesn't at all speak to any sense of "fairness" or helping to lift anybody up (although he does mention it in later tweets). -Paul
[2019-09-24 13:49:05] - "billionaires should not exist" seems like a dumb statement that does not stand up to scrutiny. what are you going to do about billionaires that can't be solved by a plane ticket outside of your jurisdiction? won't you just see massive capital flight? ~a
[2019-09-24 13:35:24] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/bernie-sanders-proposes-wealth-tax-after-plan-from-elizabeth-warren.html This is why it's hard for me to read the rhetoric from people like Sanders and Warren and not think that they just want to punish wealthy people. What exactly is the "positive" takeaway from a statement like "billionaires should not exist"? -Paul
[2019-09-24 09:30:06] - a: Yeah, but there's a little weird and then there's that interview. That's like legit insanity there. -Paul
[2019-09-24 09:10:38] - everyone knows tom cruise and is crazy. ~a
[2019-09-24 09:09:41] - doesn't he always play insane characters? it'd be like if you told me quentin tarantino was insane. or david lynch. or tilda swinton. ~a
[2019-09-23 15:51:12] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/terrence-howard-gives-odd-interview-emmys-red-carpet-1242597 .......apparently Terrence Howard is insane? -Paul
[2019-09-23 14:42:48] - but you could just say "russia" or just be general and say "enemies" . . . and not be completely off base. ~a
[2019-09-23 14:41:54] - it's a good question. ~a
[2019-09-23 14:41:08] - ok. ~a
[2019-09-23 14:35:22] - a: that feels like a major prereq to make a case for treason. If we can’t define an “enemy of the United States†Trump is directly aiding or giving comfort to, that kind of kills any case for treason. - mig
[2019-09-23 14:25:35] - i dunno. ~a
[2019-09-23 14:02:33] - a: who would the “enemies†be in this case? - mig
[2019-09-23 13:57:40] - . . . also probably need a legal definition of "adhere". ~a
[2019-09-23 13:57:15] - i'm not sure the legal definition of "aid and comfort". do you know? ~a
[2019-09-23 13:52:32] - mig: getting rid of the things trump clearly hasn't done yet, let's focus on the only possible thing weld could be referring to: "adheres to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort". pretty broad. has trump given any of our enemies aid and comfort? ~a
[2019-09-23 13:46:59] - a: I wouldn’t call what Trump is accused of treason, either. Probably illegal and corrupt but not sure how treason applies. - mig
[2019-09-23 12:46:56] - a: Yeah, I meant the technical definition. It seems even (some) Republicans are starting to get at least a little fed up with his shenanigans. -Paul
[2019-09-23 12:45:35] - paul: are we taking the technical definition of impeachment? i.e. the house votes for impeachment? i think that's (sure) around 20%. his chance of being removed from office is much lower. (imo) less than 10%. ~a
[2019-09-23 12:44:34] - (btw, apparently weld is wrong. the penalty for treason isn't death. that's *not* the only penalty, but it is one of the possible sentences. you can also get [not less than] 5 years *and* [not less than] $10k fine). ~a
[2019-09-23 12:44:07] - What do people think the chances are that Trump gets impeached? I still think it's quite low, but probably climbing. 20%? Maybe higher? -Paul
[2019-09-23 12:42:36] -
yes, i wasn't serious. ~a[2019-09-23 12:40:15] - a: "call for"? I think we need a ratcheting down, but I am anticipating the opposite. -Paul
[2019-09-23 12:38:24] - "the penalty for treason under the u.s. code is death. that's the only penalty". fuck me. did you guys call for more ratcheting up of rhetoric? that's a republican talking about a republican president. ~a
[2019-09-23 11:31:52] - a: Yeah, if the study was measuring how mutual funds perform vs each other.... well, I don't know if I have feelings on if it would be close to a coin flip or not. I'm not sure if I have a strong feeling about how mutual funds perform against each other. -Paul
[2019-09-23 11:30:04] - paul: from the research paper discussed in the freakanomics: "wharton research data services (wrds) from the past ten years (2005–2015). Here, ˆpi and ˆqi for each mutual fund were computed for first and second halves of the year, respectively, for each of the 10 years" looks like they used some pretty-small time-scales (imo). also sock market was apparently "mutual funds" which you've poo-pooed before. ~a
[2019-09-23 11:21:40] - paul: i understand why you're asking: you want to say that you win money in the long run. so, pick a unit of time that'll be the most beneficial for you. 5 years? 10? ~a
[2019-09-23 11:21:32] - a: Like, I would tend to agree that me beating somebody else investing over the course of a day, a week, a month, or maybe even a year could be close to a coin flip, but my belief is that over the long term it becomes less of a coin flip. -Paul
[2019-09-23 11:20:40] - a: Right, but at the end of what? One day? One week? One month? One year? A game has a definite end point. Fantasy sports have a definite end point. I guess coin flipping ends at one flip? But investing doesn't really have a definitive end point. -Paul
[2019-09-23 11:19:39] - winning doesn't mean beating the market, winning doesn't mean making money, winning means beating another player or set of players. ~a
[2019-09-23 11:19:12] - paul: nah . . . they'll do it the same way they look at everything else: you pit two (or more) players against each-other and determine who has more points (usd) at the end. ~a
[2019-09-23 11:16:58] - a: Because unlike a lot of those other things they measured, there isn't a single definition of "winning", really. Heck, they didn't even necessarily say whether it meant beating the market or just making money, did they? -Paul
[2019-09-23 11:15:41] - a: I would be interested in how they measured the stock market aspect, though. I suspect the investing way they measured is probably different from what I do, but obviously I have no way of knowing. -Paul
[2019-09-23 11:15:00] - a: Oh, haha! I didn't even click on your link. I just assumed it was an NPR episode. Sorry. -Paul
[2019-09-23 11:12:48] - paul: it's a little weird your link is the same as my link. oops? ~a
[2019-09-23 11:11:25] - good question. i figured since 0.3 was literally the lowest except for flipping a god-damn coin, that there's a shit-ton of luck there. and complete lack of skill. you'd be better off playing fantasy football. literally. (not really, because the stock market has beneficial outputs) otoh, 0.3 != 0, so i'm not so sure. ~a
[2019-09-23 10:36:57] - a: Although Freakonomics didn't actually give the numbers for the stock market, and just said it was mostly luck. So the question is: Does that 0.3 "prove" my point or Daniel's?
-Paul[2019-09-23 10:30:32] - a: Actually, I probably would be able to guess because I think I listened to a freakonomics podcast that referenced that exact study (http://freakonomics.com/podcast/sports-gambling/).
-Paul[2019-09-22 16:06:28] - paul: (all rounding a lot because they mostly didn't give the actual results) coin flipping = 0, stock market = 0.3, playing ... hockey = 0.6, football/baseball = 0.7, basketball = 0.8, bicycle racing = 0.9, and the fantasy version of each sport actually falls fairly near actually playing them (they explain why this is). the results were submitted to the supreme court of new york where the legality of fantasy gambling was litigated. ~a
[2019-09-22 16:03:26] - paul: they measured PLAYING baseball, hockey, basketball, football, but also playing FANTASY baseball, hockey, basketball, and football. they also included bicycle-racing, coin flipping, and the stock market! their results were positioned between 0 (all luck) and 1 (all skill). you'll never guess how they all fell out. actually you might guess: i was able to predict the position of a few of these things. (22:00) ~a
[2019-09-22 16:03:21] - paul: listened to an interesting npr thing where they measured luck vs skill using statistics. interesting because it's like one of the bases behind pvtm (luck or skill?). but also because i think it was a huge discussion in the great stratego debate (tgsd). they measured the luck vs strategy by determining how players did in the 1st half of a series vs the 2nd half. ~a
[2019-09-22 16:03:10] - my guess is that cancel culture isn't long for this world. ~a
[2019-09-22 16:02:38] - mig: gotcha. ~a
[2019-09-22 15:05:18] - She said she was hurt/offended by some of his jokes because of what happened to her and his response was: “It’s not your fault you were raped. But it’s not my fault either.†- mig
[2019-09-22 15:03:37] - a: mostly his jokes on cancel culture. Also there was a retelling of an exchange with a rape victim he had in the followup show. - mig
[2019-09-20 15:43:59] - Paul: Just on the theory of why we need the 2nd amendment. People normally talk about hunting / home defense / defense from gov. I think my idea covers the first two but my point is I don't think there is a use case for the 2nd amendment where the people can defend themselves from the army. People talk about that but I think thats just silly. -Daniel
[2019-09-20 15:23:32] - a: I honestly don't know for sure, though. -Paul
[2019-09-20 15:23:18] - a: Uh... I am guessing the trans stuff, the MJ molestation stuff, and the impersonations were probably three big ones. -Paul
[2019-09-20 15:22:38] - paul: which part of the chappelle thing was considered offensive (by the media?). it was (of course) offensive, but i don't remember too much of it being over-the-line. ~a
[2019-09-20 15:20:24] - Daniel: That the cops or ATF agents or whatever being sent in to take them might get a hostile response, and that might make local, state, or the federal government think twice. -Paul
[2019-09-20 15:19:37] - Daniel: I'm not sure it's necessarily about a lone farmer shooting his shotgun at tanks and fighter jets. I think it's more about what has been alluded to now: That if the government decides to start confiscating people's guns that there's a decent chance there WILL be conflict and blood. -Paul
[2019-09-20 15:15:44] - I've been off the board for a while cause been busy but on the gun subject I still think there is some merit to only having shotguns / revolvers / single shot bolt action rifles as legal. Seems to allow for the home defense / hunting use cases and helping with the rest. However for those that actually think we need guns to fight the gov? No idea what to tell those people. /shrug -Daniel
[2019-09-20 13:16:17] - a: Is that just complete cognitive dissonance? Has society changed that much? Is he a hypocrite? Are we making too big a deal over black/brown-face? Has he changed as a person? Has society changed? Is all of that true? -Paul
[2019-09-20 13:14:47] - a: One of the most interesting questions coming out of this, to me, is how to square the type of person Trudeau seems to be now (seemingly the type of person who is quick to label others racist and is super on board with social justice as an agenda) with him having done this multiple times in the recent past as an adult. -Paul
[2019-09-20 13:09:40] - paul: i'm *def* not on that train, but seriously, 2001? i could have told you in 2001 that this was an unacceptable thing to do, let alone allow someone to photograph it. ~a
[2019-09-20 12:07:37] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/we-were-wrong-koch-network-plans-new-strategy-against-trump-tariffs.html I guess CNBC felt like they had to label Charles Koch a "libertarian" here instead of the normal "conservative" since it's reporting on an anti-Trump campaign (yet they still used "conservative" in the video attached to the article). -Paul
[2019-09-20 11:52:20] - So, I can't quite tell if Adrian was being serious, but I'm curious who here is on the "past black/brown-face use means must resign from current job" train. I know that's probably an inaccurate take on it, but I don't know how else to describe the position. -Paul
[2019-09-19 12:10:06] - i've definitely hugged people that i'm senior to (one or two times at a funeral and/or wedding, that i can think of). but they initiated the hug. ~a
[2019-09-19 12:08:19] - a: Hopefully you weren't senior to them! -Paul
[2019-09-19 12:07:42] - i know there are coworkers i've been to war-zones with that i've hugged. ~a
[2019-09-19 12:04:25] - paul: i know i've probably hugged a coworker before. but it was a friend who was also a coworker. the last section, "other ways to show warmth", has horrible advice. that seems worse than hugging, and i've never done that (probably). ~a
[2019-09-19 11:58:28] - paul: just say it. do you honestly care if you get canceled? ~a
[2019-09-19 11:23:20] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/success/hugging-at-work/ Step 1: Don't do it. Steps 2-5: See step 1. -Paul
[2019-09-19 11:16:42] - *Sigh* I have things to say about the whole dust-up with Trudeau, but I don't want to get canceled.
-Paul[2019-09-18 23:14:29] - yep! ~a
[2019-09-18 19:52:15] - https://time.com/5680759/justin-trudeau-brownface-photo/ welp, he’s gotta go, right? - mig
[2019-09-18 10:41:07] - a: I've been given the go-ahead. See you (and others?) online tonight? -Paul
[2019-09-18 10:04:30] - uhhh, i'll keep the night open. let me know by any time.
~a[2019-09-18 10:03:54] - a: I might be able to do tonight. Have to check with the wife. When do you need to know by? -Paul
[2019-09-18 10:03:16] - paul: no sc2 for me tomorrow. i could do tonight. ~a
[2019-09-17 23:08:11] - mig: good point. sanders . . . maybe. warren . . . yes i think she'd do better. ~a
[2019-09-17 18:23:55] - a: you really think Sanders or Warren would do better? - mig
[2019-09-17 15:57:54] - anniversary saturday and my sister is in town sunday.
~a[2019-09-17 15:33:58] - a: You free for frisbee this weekend? -Paul
[2019-09-17 14:56:28] - paul: ok, "Are you saying all rifles are weapons of war?" no. ~a
[2019-09-17 14:55:40] - mig: i kinda hope biden loses the primary. he'll get crushed by trump (imo). hopefully black voters will come around. whoever wins, i hope they take a page from the trump book: be bat-shit crazy and americans will love you more, not less. being the "adult in the room" lost the democrats the last election. ~a
[2019-09-17 14:38:55] - a: Okay, "do you think all weapons of war should be legal?" No. -Paul
[2019-09-17 14:36:50] -
meh, i was joking. more seriously, i already defined weapon of war: "a weapon used by soldiers on the (modern) battlefield". we can expand on that definition if you'd like. ~a[2019-09-17 14:06:05] - a: I'm not sure I understand your scoring? Miguel asked for the definition of "weapon of war" and I replied "guns certain people don't like". From there, you said, "guns that are often used in high-profile shootings". I assumed that was a reference to "weapons of war" and not... whatever it is you were referring to. -Paul
[2019-09-17 13:18:28] - you also said handguns first. 0 and 3. ~a
[2019-09-17 13:17:25] - paul: you said "guns" first. you also said "rifles" first. you're 0 and 2. ~a
[2019-09-17 12:42:26] - a: Depends on what the definition of a weapon of war is.
I thought that's what we were talking about, but then you started talking about rifles. -Paul[2019-09-17 12:41:53] - paul: do you think all weapons of war should be legal? ~a
[2019-09-17 12:24:42] - https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/461116-the-white-privilege-democratic-primary Fight white privilege by nominating Joe Biden? Man, this is quite a take. - mig
[2019-09-17 12:22:46] - when i hear weapons of war i don't even think of guns. unless you consider a .50cal a gun. i mostly think of things that are already illegal. like mines and mortars. ~a
[2019-09-17 12:14:28] - a: It's no problem, I'm just curious what you think. I remember you enjoyed his previous stuff, so I'm wondering if you think this is just as good and/or if you think his style has changed at all. -Paul
[2019-09-17 12:13:47] - a: Are you saying all rifles are weapons of war? -Paul
[2019-09-17 12:13:18] - no! i keep forgetting. i'll try to remember, sorry! ~a
[2019-09-17 12:12:55] - a: Did you ever watch the Chappelle Netflix special? -Paul
[2019-09-17 12:00:55] - often = 27% of the time
link. compared to rifles used for home defense, 27% is probably pretty high. ~a
[2019-09-17 11:08:26] - a: I'll be honest. I don't often pay attention to the types of guns used during high profile mass shootings. To me it seems like such an inconsequential detail, although I do realize it's very important to some. -Paul
[2019-09-17 11:05:54] - a: Are they often used in high profile shootings? It's an honest question. Most of the ones I recall involved handguns, I thought, although I do know a few have involved rifles. I guess it depends on the definition of "often" and "high-profile". -Paul
[2019-09-17 11:04:18] - a: Yes, it's snark, but it's also probably the most accurate definition I can come up with. Like "assault weapon", it's a term that varies a lot depending on who you talk to. Sometimes it's defined by legislation that refers to cosmetic things like pistol grips which do little to nothing to impact the "deadliness" of a weapon. -Paul
[2019-09-17 10:48:27] - paul/mig: it's a good "rallying cry" because it's hard to defend against. having a gun for sport, or a gun for home defense, is a good use case. so politicians have an easier time (*relatively*) banning guns that are bad at sport and bad at home defense. ~a
[2019-09-17 10:47:03] - paul/mig: yep, guns that certain people don't like. nice snark
but also guns that are often used in high-profile shootings. guns that don't kill that many people per year, but typically can kill a lot of people per hour. also guns that typically are used/designed to kill humans outdoors (i.e. "in war") and typically really bad for home defense (i.e. indoors). ~a[2019-09-17 09:16:42] - mig: Guns that certain people don't like. -Paul
[2019-09-16 23:56:46] - (for example 81mm mortar, 60mm mortar, 50cal, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, etc). ~a
[2019-09-16 23:46:00] - mig: so, I don't know is the short version. I don't think I would use that term, but can we just say "a weapon used by soldiers on the (modern) battlefield?". ~a
[2019-09-16 21:57:19] - please be specific. - mig
[2019-09-16 21:49:26] - since I just saw the term thrown around again in the news recently, can someone here define for me what a “weapon of war†is? - mig
[2019-09-16 15:12:48] - a: It's like dog bites man. Breaking news: Political ad stokes fear mongering! -Paul
[2019-09-16 15:12:05] - a: Yeah, it sounds like we mostly agree? I guess I thought it was unremarkable in terms of political ads (with the cynicism of thinking most political ads are dumb) so I was kinda wondering what the big controversy was. -Paul
[2019-09-16 14:39:07] - "it doesn't seem egregious by the standards of our politics". yah. ~a
[2019-09-16 14:37:53] - i would call those commercials dumb (and fear mongering) as well. wouldn't you? ~a
[2019-09-16 14:24:58] - a: This honestly seems relatively tame compared to that. -Paul
[2019-09-16 14:24:48] - a: Fear mongering? Sure. But it doesn't seem egregious by the standards of our politics. I mean, we're having active shooter drills at schools and yelling at people about dead school kids despite the fact that school shootings are incredibly rare. Didn't we have commercials with Paul Ryan pushing an elderly person in a wheelchair off a cliff? -Paul
[2019-09-16 14:21:49] - a: I don't see how you take away from the commercial that forced marriages are good, except that it's preferable to death, I suppose. The white thing seems to be address how AOC likes to embrace the narrative about her being a young woman of color and Republicans are a bunch of white people uncomfortable with that. -Paul
[2019-09-16 13:13:36] - paul: what is aoc even running for? this commercial was put out because she said some mean things about our dear leader? ~a
[2019-09-16 13:13:21] - paul: i don't know if it's any more or less dumb than the average political commercial. aoc is a socialist, and socialists will cause forced obedience and starvation? the fear mongering is off the charts. dumb. (also, forced marriages are good? and some republicans are white?) dumber than other political commercials? i don't really care. this one is dumb. ~a
[2019-09-16 11:26:54] - a: Um.. I wouldn't say it's a "good" commercial, but I am curious the specific reason you think it's dumb. Other than the inflammatory (no pun intended) start, I don't know if it's any more or less dumb than the average political commercial. -Paul
[2019-09-16 10:03:25] - mig: Right, I mean, it certainly seems suspicious. Is it really just unsupported (not just unsupported, but denied) second hand allegations? -Paul
[2019-09-16 10:02:07] - paul: it should be obvious from the op-ed. The authors have a book that needs selling! - mig
[2019-09-16 09:38:22] - a: Yeah, how bizarrely coincidental. I guess it backs up your point a bit that more stuff could come out, but why on Earth did it take until now? -Paul
[2019-09-16 09:21:38] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/us/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-trump-impeach.html article posted the day after the op-ed was posted, fails to mention that detail again. Weird. Almost as if they want to bury that fact for some odd reason. - mig
[2019-09-16 08:15:19] - a: from the nyt article containing the new allegation - "The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article." 1) seems like an important caveat to a supposedly credible allegation, and 2) very, *very* odd that particular fact got added to the article after publication. - mig
[2019-09-15 17:23:47] - i feel like these headlines were written in 2018 ~a
[2019-09-15 13:59:29] - paul: wtf is this a coincidence? why were we discussing kavanaugh three days ago? ~a
[2019-09-14 12:02:34] - I assumed the μολὼν λαβΠdiscussion was somehow related to me and our podcast chatter. -- Xpovos
[2019-09-13 19:17:25] - paul: the AOC commercial is pretty dumb. The whole fighting with AOC has turned into the whole Trump fighting for me. I can't figure out which side I detest more at this point. - mig
[2019-09-13 16:19:23] - no, monon labe isn't a death threat. i know this is specific to someone in the line of succession but it's the only law i could find right away. seems to be a death threat requires a target. molon labe has no target. cain stated a specific target. yeah, your wagging finger thing is a reductive analogy, but yeah i think a target is one of the requirements. ~a
[2019-09-13 16:14:54] - did you think it was a good commercial? we're talking about this, right? ~a
[2019-09-13 16:13:59] - a: What makes the AOC commercial dumb? -Paul
[2019-09-13 16:13:38] - a: Molon Labe is a Greek phrase which basically means "come and get them" and is often used in reference to somebody being told to lay down their weapons. The idea being, "come and try to make me". It feels like the exact same idea trying to be conveyed. -Paul
[2019-09-13 16:12:23] - i googled molon labe and didn't find anything. is that the same as the aoc commercial? the aoc commercial is DUMB, but probably not illegal. ~a
[2019-09-13 16:10:44] - a: I'm not sure what the other side is. If this is a death threat, then what about my other question about Molon Labe? Is that also a threat? -Paul
[2019-09-13 15:55:48] - paul: to law enforcement? aren't you and miguel usually on the other side of this one? ~a
[2019-09-13 15:50:16] - a: I still don't get why it is unambiguously a death threat then. Doesn't intent matter at all? -Paul
[2019-09-13 15:02:01] - no, no, i don't consider it a waste of resources. my assumptions are very often wrong. most people assume that nobody will kill anybody ever. and most people don't work in law enforcement. ~a
[2019-09-13 15:01:18] - a: That seems to get at the heart of the "problem", that most of us know he didn't actually plan to kill anybody, and therefore to consider it a serious death threat is.... a waste of resources? -Paul
[2019-09-13 15:01:08] - i assume that, yes. but the fbi probably can't afford to assume that much? ~a
[2019-09-13 15:00:30] - a: Fair, but even ignoring legality, I guess I'm confused how you can say it was "unambiguously a death threat" but also assume that "cain doesn't actually plan on killing anyone". -Paul
[2019-09-13 14:59:19] - paul: i don't know about the laws on death threats. i feel like those laws don't affect me one way or the other, because i don't make death threats
my guess is that 99% of death threats are investigated then dropped. the last 1% probably don't overlap with members of the texas house of representatives? ~a[2019-09-13 14:56:44] - a: "confirm cain doesn't actually plan on killing anyone" Wouldn't that... not make it a death threat, then? -Paul
[2019-09-13 14:56:17] - paul: nothing of "substance". they will talk to cain, confirm cain doesn't actually plan on killing anyone, then call it a day. i doubt there will be any charges. ~a
[2019-09-13 14:52:53] - a: If it's "unambiguously a death threat", then shouldn't the FBI do something about it? -Paul
[2019-09-13 14:51:48] - from a (state) rep no less, jesus christ. ~a
[2019-09-13 14:50:35] - paul: the beto thing was unambiguously a death threat. the fbi has been alerted. i doubt they'll do anything of substance, but i hope a few agents give cain a talking to. ~a
[2019-09-13 14:15:21] - This almost feels like the weird regulations on NBA technical fouls where Mutombo could wag his finger at the crowd, but not the player he just blocked. -Paul
[2019-09-13 14:14:44] - The first is being described as trying to incite violence while the latter is being described as a death threat. Without context, I can maybe see how the latter can be construed as a death threat, but does that also mean Molon Labe is a death threat? I guess it would have to be directed at somebody? -Paul
[2019-09-13 14:12:47] - Two related things seem to have come out of the debate last night that I was curious what people think. One, was the commercial which showed a picture of AOC which then burned away to reveal skulls. The other was a Texas Representative tweeting "my AR is ready for you" to Beto. -Paul
[2019-09-13 13:43:11] - can anyone remember if there are any NSFW moments? i think it's ok, but i'm not totally sure there aren't any "borderline" scenes. ~a
[2019-09-13 13:26:45] - your coworkers will love it. it's a 1000% great idea for a friday. ~a
[2019-09-13 13:26:20] - nah, watch it now! ~a
[2019-09-13 13:21:59] - a: Huh, somehow missed that. Added to my "watch later" list. -Paul
[2019-09-13 12:48:01] - shrug. i'm not an investigator. ~a
[2019-09-13 12:13:06] - a: re - ford: what precisely was there to investigate? To this day we don’t have even a date (or location?) of the alleged assault and all the people Ford claims were there don’t recall such a party taking place. I don’t know what evidence could possibly be discovered with that little to go on. - mig
[2019-09-13 11:21:52] - paul: wtf? we've talked about it here a bunch. mostly by aaron (i replied to pretty much all of those messages) ~a
[2019-09-13 10:47:32] - a: How have I never heard of the first movie? -Paul
[2019-09-13 10:28:31] - finally filming kung fury 2. (post by a schwarzenegger). ~a
[2019-09-13 09:49:32] - paul: maybe. but that's the point of an investigation. the "maybe" that you'll find something. ~a
[2019-09-13 09:12:31] - a: Maybe. I feel like if those people were going to speak out, then they would've during the height of the furor and more investigation wasn't going to unearth anything. -Paul
[2019-09-12 16:49:45] - california bans private for-profit prisons ~a
[2019-09-12 16:25:46] - paul: more (alleged) victims. witnesses. "excited utterances". ~a
[2019-09-12 14:39:54] - a: Oh, you think so? What do you think they would find? It was so long ago I can't even imagine what evidence would still exist. -Paul
[2019-09-12 14:37:56] - "how likely would an investigation have unearthed something?" highly. imo. ~a
[2019-09-12 13:49:48] - a: Sorry, I guess that should've been past tense. "Should it have disqualified him". I think the problem probably is how likely would an investigation have unearthed something? -Paul
[2019-09-12 13:48:17] - "trying to put aside your feelings on his positions on the issues" always
"disqualify him from the Supreme Court" well, it's a little late now. impeachment of a supreme court justice is pretty hard. i guess you're asking if it were up to me? if it were up to me, i think i'd want more investigation before i decided either way. ~a[2019-09-12 13:41:18] - a: So given what you said, do you think those accusations alone (trying to put aside your feelings on his positions on the issues) should be enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court? -Paul
[2019-09-12 13:39:17] - there is very little evidence. i personally believe her story: i'm not sure what she would have to gain by making up the story, while admitting that doesn't prove or disprove anything. maybe she loves limelight. that's why people make up stories sometimes, but i don't see that in this case. ~a
[2019-09-12 12:59:04] - I can go first: I personally have no idea who to believe. It's basically a he said/she said. As far as I know there's little to no evidence proving he did or did not do anything. So I basically shrug my shoulders and say I don't know and we'll probably never know. -Paul
[2019-09-12 12:56:34] - I ask because I know some people who are 100% absolutely convinced that he is absolute scum and did everything he was accused of and is a drunkard and all sorts of other things. -Paul
[2019-09-12 12:55:40] - I'm curious what people here think about Brett Kavanaugh in terms of his confirmation hearing and the allegations by Ford (ie, less about his specific judicial views and complaints about Garland, and more about whether they think the allegations are true or false and how the process went). -Paul
[2019-09-11 20:44:20] - a: I started off with that because that was kinda the strawman point from the "other side" of the article. I wasn't saying Democrats don't want white people, I was paraphrasing the "woke young millennial" argument from the article about them all thinking AOC is the new hotness when most Democrats are more centrist. -Paul
[2019-09-11 16:59:41] - ok, there are some much fairer statements. you started off with (to liberally paraphrase) "democrats don't like white people". now the rest of the stuff about segregationists, smelling hair, and shitty laws is fair and i concede. though you like to take stuff in historical context: so the segregationism and *some* of the shitty laws might not stand up to scrutiny, but the smelling hair thing has trouble even in historical context. ~a
[2019-09-11 16:16:43] - a: There's a lot of things that noisy segments of the left seem to be pretty against that Biden has clearly violated. I also forgot to mention his weird habit of smelling women's hair... -Paul
[2019-09-11 16:16:04] - a: To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying it's the sense I get either. But it does seem like the media is a little perplexed (like I am) that this old white male with a history of gaffes who is responsible for bad laws and worked with segregationists... is leading in support across the board. -Paul
[2019-09-11 16:12:56] - "sense that the Democratic party doesn't want old white men" (to me, at least) this isn't the sense i get. ~a
[2019-09-11 15:54:06] - *not sure if he's actually the oldest or whitest.... but it has to be close. -Paul
[2019-09-11 15:53:50] - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/joe-biden-vs-millennial-reporters I thought this was an interesting way to look at the Democratic primary so far and the strange (to me, at least) sense that the Democratic party doesn't want old white men.... yet the oldest and whitest male* is polling highest... even among minorities (especially among minorities?) -Paul
[2019-09-11 14:36:32] - a: Isn't this the month he picked a Twitter fight with Chrissy Teigen? Or maybe the month he made fun of Mark Sanford for his marital indiscretions? -Paul
[2019-09-11 14:00:44] -
ok i'll bite, what's the most asshole-ish thing he's done this month? ~a[2019-09-11 13:54:43] - a: Heh, I don't disagree, but at the same time this is like one of the least asshole-ish things he's done this month alone, let alone ever.
-Paul[2019-09-11 13:53:49] - what an asshole? ~a
[2019-09-10 12:54:44] - california passes law that prevents cities from taxing energy generated by solar rooftop projects ~a
[2019-09-06 13:57:10] - a: Thanks. -Paul
[2019-09-06 13:08:02] - sorry, exercise, not execute, my bad. ~a
[2019-09-06 13:07:36] - if you're getting stock options for free, sure, i'd be less aggressive about information because you're getting something for free. once you're ready to execute the options, though, that's when you're giving up your money to get something of questionable value. ~a
[2019-09-06 13:06:21] - a: Okay. That seemed more aggressive than just asking for the share outstanding, but it would be nice info to have. Just not sure if it was odd to ask those kinds of questions. -Paul
[2019-09-06 13:05:40] - that way you're getting everything you want, not just the shares outstanding. ~a
[2019-09-06 13:05:18] - i also wouldn't ask anyone for the number of shares outstanding. i would ask around to who would have all of the financials regarding the private shares. ~a
[2019-09-06 13:04:41] - yes
~a[2019-09-06 13:04:27] - a: Confront the CFO in a dark alley? -Paul
[2019-09-06 13:02:46] - i wouldn't ask it in a company meeting, no. ~a
[2019-09-06 12:16:09] - Question: I have some stock options in a private company that I could exercise in the event that the company goes public (or gets bought out, I assume). Is it at all inappropriate to ask how many shares outstanding there are at a company meeting? -Paul
[2019-09-06 09:12:39] - a: Crap. So getting solar panels isn't going to help with my weed problem? -Paul
[2019-09-06 07:50:53] - win win win. the third win is for successful negotiation. ~a
[2019-09-05 14:25:05] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/fantasy-investing-august-2019-standings/ It's official: You're closing the gap. -Paul
[2019-09-05 10:21:08] - a: Yeah, I liked it okay. It was worth having on while doing some other stuff on my laptop. -Paul
[2019-09-05 09:56:04] - paul: but did you like it. ~a
[2019-09-05 09:42:11] - a: I don't regret having watched it, but I also don't think you're missing much by not watching it. -Paul
[2019-09-05 09:41:18] - a: I watched the Chapelle stand-up last night (although I seem to have missed the follow-up and Q&A that Miguel mentioned). Thought it was okay, and did chuckle a few times. Not sure I'm super into his style, and it does seem like something aimed at cancel culture and willing to cross any lines should've been funnier. -Paul
[2019-09-04 22:19:14] - at some point i'm starting to think he's doing this shit intentionally ~a
[2019-09-04 14:25:04] - if it was a tax professional i'd ask them what they mean. also, it could easily be that i'm wrong. ~a
[2019-09-04 13:02:28] - I watched it all last night. I think the show on a whole was ok. Nothing really special though. Some of the humor did feel forced to be super offensive (the Michael Jackson stuff in particular). The followup act and the Q&A after the initial show were really fascinating though. - mig
[2019-09-04 12:53:48] - a: Yeah, that's what I thought, but this person was a tax professional, so I assumed they knew something I didn't. It's possible they were referring to what you were saying instead of reducing taxable income, though. -Paul
[2019-09-04 12:50:14] - basically, if someone is using a backdoor roth ira, it's because normal roth and traditional iras won't work because their AGI is too high. but regardless, it isn't to decrease their taxable income in *that* year (unless they're talking about a technicality. the technical way the backdoor roth works is complicated). ~a
[2019-09-04 12:47:43] - i think backdoor roth ira (or any roth ira) won't decrease your taxable income this year. it's only for decreasing your taxable income in future years. ~a
[2019-09-04 12:32:27] - Here's a random question for the group: I'm looking for ways to reduce our taxable income this year. Somebody suggested using a backdoor Roth, but I don't see how that would reduce our taxable income this year. Am I missing something? -Paul
[2019-09-04 12:29:49] - a: Wish I had sold sooner. It felt a bit like AMD where it soared really high, and then started falling and I held on too long. -Paul
[2019-09-04 12:29:07] - nice. ~a
[2019-09-04 12:28:02] - a: Looks like around $32 a share. -Paul
[2019-09-04 12:26:53] - interesting, at what price did you sell ax? ~a
[2019-09-04 12:24:48] - a: Last I checked (last week sometime?) I am still beating the market since inception, though. This quarter I'm losing a bit. -Paul
[2019-09-04 12:24:19] - a: Sorry. That's a bad sample. For the record, I sold AX awhile ago. I have noticed that the past few months have been completely carried by MELI and SHOP. My portfolio is getting weirdly unbalanced where I have 3 monsters (AMZN, SHOP, MELI) that basically overshadow everything else. -Paul
[2019-09-04 12:21:12] - yeah, kshb, sq, ax . . . thank god you got out of twou. all of the paul-picks i watch have been hurting a lot recently. ~a
[2019-09-04 12:01:28] - a: Yeah, Square has been taking it on the chin lately. Not entirely sure why, as I mentioned previously. I actually added a bit to my position. Think it eventually rebounds. -Paul
[2019-09-04 11:20:26] - paul: challenge is looking closer than usual. 5 roentgen. not great, not terrible. ~a
[2019-09-04 10:35:32] - a: That's a lot of pressure, but will do. -Paul
[2019-09-04 10:27:24] - let me know when you watch it. if you liked it, i'll watch it. ~a
[2019-09-04 10:26:03] - a: Uh, it wasn't a plan. I see the two as somewhat unrelated. For whatever reason, I never watched the Chapelle Show, but that was years ago. I find this one more interesting not just because it was critically panned, but apparently almost universally beloved by the audience (unless, as you say, the score is faked). -Paul
[2019-09-04 10:24:21] - why would you *only* watch the one show that was universally panned? that seems like a weird plan. ~a
[2019-09-04 09:39:14] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/google-paid-search-ads-shakedown-basecamp-ceo-says.html I thought this was an interesting way to view Google's business model. -Paul
[2019-09-04 09:34:53] - a: Er... maybe I should say potentially offensive? I didn't find it offensive, but I can clearly see why he's getting backlash from the media. -Paul
[2019-09-04 09:34:21] - a: I did watch the first 5 minutes or so and found it pretty funny, but obviously pretty offensive as well. -Paul
[2019-09-04 09:33:42] - a: I'll report back if/when I watch. I'm one of those weirdos who pretty much never watched his show years ago (for example, I have no idea why "I'm Rick James, *****!" is a thing), and he's always been associated with Loius CK in my mind as somebody who everybody seems to like who I just don't get, so maybe I'll like this? -Paul
[2019-09-04 08:19:32] - paul: audrey watched it and hated it. (for context, we both love chappelle in general. but this one was apparently unfunny) maybe the "audience" score got botted? ~a
[2019-09-03 16:14:44] - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dave_chappelle_sticks_and_stones Look at the tomatometer vs the audience score. For that reason alone, I want to see this now. -Paul
[2019-08-29 14:32:46] - paul, i'll be there today. this weekend, depends on what day, but probably not. ~a
[2019-08-29 13:58:20] - Paul: I'm a maybe for Starcraft, not sure though. -Daniel
[2019-08-29 13:51:58] - Am I going to see anybody online tonight for Starcraft? Also, anybody want to do some 2v2 Ultimate this weekend?
-Paul[2019-08-29 12:39:54] - interesting point! i definitely don't consider that view at all. i'll have to rethink that some, i guess. (maybe i should restate that i do use bonds too. i'm currently at 18% bonds. and before retirement i might put 1% in something even more stable?) ~a
[2019-08-29 12:38:32] - a: Maybe? That might be true if the selling was random, but I suspect the selling might be more likely to be associated with the economy (recession = higher chance of job loss = better chance of needing to sell) which is probably related to the market. -Paul
[2019-08-29 12:31:00] - paul: "for a one year time period" . . . there's your mistake
shorter time periods than a year are irrelevant: if you put in $2k for 3 months and lose money, then put $2k for 3 months and make money, and keep doing that for the next ~40 years, you'll probably make money on average: in fact it'll possibly be around 11%/year (before inflation and taxes). ~a[2019-08-29 11:27:16] - a: And frankly, I'm looking at probably shorter time periods than a year. I already have so much in the market, so I'm in many ways more comfortable with a 0% return that I can be pretty sure of than an outcome that is somewhere between up 10% or down 10%. -Paul
[2019-08-29 11:25:26] - a: Maybe. No doubt you've been right recently, but we've also been in a pretty abnormally long bull market. I keep thinking back to those charts which show that, for a one year time period, it's almost a coin flip if the market goes up or down. -Paul
[2019-08-29 11:24:24] - see . . . you had me until that last part. that last part wouldn't annoy me. because i try to look at the logic of it. selling on december 17th is so much more efficient than storing the money in a savings account. ~a
[2019-08-29 11:22:55] - a: Or being annoyed that I had to sell on like December 17th, 2018. -Paul
[2019-08-29 11:21:49] - a: I don't necessarily think of emergency funds vs my bank account as a binary or even separate thing. To me, "emergency fund" is pretty similar to "cash cushion". I want to be able to fairly easily handle things like needing a new HVAC system or swim lessons or whatever else without stressing about if my VTSAX transfer will resolve in time. -Paul
[2019-08-29 10:10:42] - paul: to expand on this: my workplace has a bank account. its balance usually sits at around 100-150k (and we can let it dip down to zero on occasion). it makes 0% in interest. maybe we could switch it to an interest baring account, but *usually* to do that we need to have a minimum, which i don't think we'd be able to meet, right? we don't call this an "emergency fund". we just call it our bank account? ~a
[2019-08-29 10:10:41] - paul: all of that is fair and it might explain exactly why we disagree on so much regarding an emergency fund. you solved it! i have . . . more predictable expenses? (and a weirdly less predictable income) but i'll take a different tack: shouldn't you call it something other than an "emergency fund" if you're pulling from it (almost) monthly? shouldn't it be called just . . . a "normal" account? call it . . . nothing? ~a
prev <-> next