prev <-> next
[2019-11-18 12:45:42] - a: Okay, even if I accept that as an accurate description (which I am not sure I do), how is that not even ground? -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:44:53] - blm is trying to address an inequality. alm is trying to question the attempt to address an inequality. ~a
[2019-11-18 12:44:13] - a: How so? -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:41:33] - blm vs alm. ~a
[2019-11-18 12:40:58] - a: What two sides? -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:40:35] - "the benefit of the doubt only seems to go one way" it only needs to. the two sides aren't on even ground. ~a
[2019-11-18 12:40:26] - yah. ~a
[2019-11-18 12:40:11] - a: Yes, I believe you have won 1 out of 3 so far? -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:39:40] - Daniel: But the benefit of the doubt only seems to go one way. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:38:48] - paul: i didn't realize that the violence against women act wasn't about violence against women. i guess it shouldn't surprise me, but it's interesting that the text is gender-neutral. why are you against the law it if the text is gender-neutral? ~a
[2019-11-18 12:37:54] - Daniel: Sure, and I can accept that "Black Lives Matter" doesn't only mean those lives matter because I'm willing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. That's all I'm asking in return, especially since if anything "All Lives Matter" should be even harder to misconstrue. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:36:02] - Daniel: "Those seem like things I'm ok with." Even if those things might only apply for one gender? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act#Coverage_of_male_victims -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:35:56] - paul: "yet another". does yet another imply there's been more than one?
~a[2019-11-18 12:34:47] - Paul: The point is that in the context of our society "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean only those lives matter. It means those are the ones that aren't being accepted as lives that matter. I understand your point from a literal english meaning but there is context around them. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:31:28] - Daniel: And yet it would be wildly unacceptable for me to call somebody a troll for starting a discussion with that slogan (not that I would want to, but I also don't like the reverse being done to me). -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:30:44] - Daniel: I think "Black Lives Matter" MUCH more implies that ONLY those lives matter in exclusion to others than "All Lives Matter". -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:29:41] - Daniel: "then starting with those words immediately starts on the wrong foot." Right, but this only ever seems to go one way. Like I said before, if anything, "subset of lives matter" should be more controversial than "all lives matter", and yet it's acceptable to shut down one slogan and not the other. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:25:47] - Paul: So the changes from existing law are maybe "imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted." Those seem like things I'm ok with. Like before you couldn't sue someone for abuse in civil court but now you can? OK. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:24:15] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act "The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted." -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:23:39] - Paul: I think partly things also become shorthand for things (again cause humans are lazy). If enough arguments begin with "all lives matter - blah blah" that basically just make people feel like the gist is "yes black people we don't think that your problem with police is worth highlighting please stop talking about it" then starting with those words immediately starts on the wrong foot. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:21:08] - Sentences never heard before on the internet: "No, I think you're actually making a good and insightful point that should cause me to second guess my assumptions. " lol
-Daniel[2019-11-18 12:20:12] - Daniel: No, I think you're actually making a good and insightful point that should cause me to second guess my assumptions. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:19:48] - Daniel: "The lives matter thing isn't the issue that all lives matter is a wrong statement." Understood, but I still disagree with that being an acceptable way to shut down discussion. If I said immigrants should be kicked out because they are stealing our jobs, and you counter with "immigrants deserve jobs too", I can't just throw a fit that you're trying to devalue my point. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:18:56] - Paul: "just throws more money" ? does this mean that they are spending more resources to try and deal with the problem? That seems like it could be a good thing. Harsher punishments I don't know if that does anything or not. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:16:58] - Daniel: "Also, what exactly is being covered here that isn't already covered by regular laws?" Well, it was less an issue of me not knowing the law and more of a statement that the law seems unnecessary because it just throws more money and harsher punishments on something that is already illegal. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:16:30] - That the current exception to all lives matter seems to be except black ones which obviously does not make them happy. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:16:03] - The lives matter thing isn't the issue that all lives matter is a wrong statement. However the whole point of black lives matter is that they feel that is not a currently accepted position by many (and particularly the police) so they are trying to point out that yes indeed black lives matter. If you immediately counter that statement with all lives matter it seems to devalue the point they are trying to make. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:14:08] - Paul: "I can see no way I could've expressed any kind of disagreement with his support of the violence against women act" and "Also, what exactly is being covered here that isn't already covered by regular laws? " seem at odds. Figure out what is being covered here and why it exists and talk about the underlying issues instead of attacking the name? -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:10:40] - Because that's why I see with my interaction with Ramon (and many previous interactions). I can see no way I could've expressed any kind of disagreement with his support of the violence against women act that he wouldn't find as being offensive or trolling or whatever (and it wasn't just him, others had the same comment). -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:09:04] - What a lot of this comes down to, for me, is this idea that for every issue, there is one "acceptable" position/way of speaking and anything that varies from that is offensive or trolling or whatever. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:08:06] - Daniel: Sure, and I'm fine with that, but what I am not okay with is the idea that "Black Lives Matter" is perfectly fine and laudable but "All Live Matter" is offensive and not allowed. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:00:35] - the ___ lives matter is a whole other conversation and there are whole articles written that are going to be better than whatever I say. All lives do matter but the point of saying Black Lives Matter is because they feel that those are the lives being left out of the what should be accepted idea of all lives matter. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 11:59:01] - "Also, what exactly is being covered here that isn't already covered by regular laws? " - I think this is probably a key point for you (us) to address for this conversation. My guess is that people felt there was some problem that wasn't being addressed sufficiently by current law that was disproporitonaly affecting women and decided to try and address it and gave it that name. But thats just a guess. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 11:57:01] - a: Unrelated, but good day for chipmakers apparently. I think you're looking good for keeping the lead for yet another stock market challenge victory. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:56:30] - Or, in this circumstance, that we only have about violent crime if the gender of a victim is female. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:56:00] - Like, I get that some bad actors have used the phrase to try to dismiss legitimate criticisms. But I don't understand why we all agree that racism is bad and whatnot, but we're apparently all on board with the idea that police misconduct should only matter if the race of the victim is a certain subset. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:49:04] - a: I'm completely fine with the association with all lives matter. I think that's a perfectly laudable concept and I think the backlash against it is stupid. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:48:14] - Daniel: And I get the idea that people do get offended by things like "All lives matter" and "violence against men act", but I frankly think that's stupid and a little offensive myself. There should be less things wrong with saying "All lives matter" than "a certain subset of people's lives matter". -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:46:52] - Daniel: "Yeah thats probably not a great starting point for a question." Can you give a better one, though? Because every other start to that discussion that I could think of ended up being worse in my mind. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:45:29] - (i also like daniel's analogy. paul, all lives matter) ~a
[2019-11-18 11:45:25] - a: But a law of violence by men is a completely different law than violence against women since isn't most violence men on men? Also, what exactly is being covered here that isn't already covered by regular laws? -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:45:03] - there are laws that focus on the larger problem: car drivers crashing into other car drivers. but you also need specific laws that solve smaller problems: car drivers crashing into pedestrians and people on bikes. why? because those smaller problems have specific details that require special laws addressing their special needs. ~a
[2019-11-18 11:43:42] - Paul: Yeah thats probably not a great starting point for a question. Like the whole Black Lives / All Lives thing. It is true that All lives matter but aruging that after someone says black lives matter is missing the point somewhat. That said I do personally know pretty much jack about the violence against women act so I don't think I get to speak much about its intentions or value. I can guess though! -Daniel
[2019-11-18 11:43:19] - there's also a situation of vulnerable parties. here's a weird analogy: most deaths on the road are cars crashing into other cars. but pedestrians are "vulnerable road users": so a lot of (vision zero) law is focusing on getting pedestrian deaths much (much) lower. why? why, shouldn't there be laws about solving the larger problem of cars crashing into cars? well, because sometimes you need laws to protect vulnerable parties. ~a
[2019-11-18 11:39:04] - paul: it's "violence AGAINST women/men", not "violence BY women/men". maybe it should be the latter? or, worded differently, maybe that's what the bill is actually getting at? ~a
[2019-11-18 11:29:06] - a: "they're more often the victims of violent crimes committed by men?" Yes? And probably women too? I'm sorry, I don't quite get your point here. Does it matter who perpetrated the crime? It's "violence AGAINST women/men", not "violence BY women/men". -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:27:31] - a: Wait, that seems to back what I said. that men are the victim more often than women. Also, you made another one of my points: That this is covered by current law. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:27:27] - brb, meeting then lunch. ~a
[2019-11-18 11:27:20] - "men are more often the victims of violent crime than women" they're more often the victims of violent crimes committed by men? ~a
[2019-11-18 11:26:16] - a: Ah, nm. Let me look at that. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:26:06] - a: I did start off with some fact, such as that men are more often the victims of violent crime than women. I'm curious about how you figure violence against men is a smaller problem.... -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:25:22] - (source for some of that) ~a
[2019-11-18 11:25:07] - paul: start off with some facts to help your case? here's some that hurt your case: violence against men is a smaller problem (therefore covered by current law). most homicides and violence are committed by men. in the home (but also in general when the committer and victim are different genders) women are usually the victim. ~a
[2019-11-18 11:24:24] - a: At least this way I'm using the same political thinking: If violence against women is bad, isn't violence against men also bad? What other way of opening that debate would work better? -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:23:36] - a: You say "oof", and I suspect that I know why, but part of the problem is that the debate has been framed in such a way that it's kinda impossible to start that discussion. Should I say, "We don't need a violence against women act"? Then it sounds like I think violence against women is fine. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:17:48] - oof. ~a
[2019-11-18 11:17:47] - a: Uh, I wasn't asking for it, but I am happy to discuss if you want. -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:17:28] - Daniel: "Why isn't there a violence against men act?" -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:16:15] - paul: i was going to ask a similar question to daniel. did you want us to argue for the "violence against women act"? because we can if you'd like
~a[2019-11-18 11:15:43] - Paul: what was your question? -Daniel
[2019-11-18 11:12:57] - aDaniel: Yes, I was being hyperbolic there. Sorry. I thought it was obvious but I can see how it wasn't. He actually very nicely called me a troll and told me to move on: "So at this point I can see you are egging people on", "you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and others", "Please move on to someone else's post", "logic that is more appropriate for an elementary schooler than a grown man" -Paul
[2019-11-18 11:09:11] - a: I think he (and his friends) were being unreasonable, but I also don't want you assuming that just by taking my word for it. You can just assume it was an honest disagreement. I just... I dunno, man. I don't see it as a good thing for political discourse or the country in general when everybody is basically writing off the "other side" and won't even discuss things no matter how cordial the attempts are. -Paul
[2019-11-18 10:58:18] - 2. "If you are sharing stuff on twitter / facebook and not expect comments that seems optimistic? naive?" they were only expecting agreement. a bunch of people assume that people that disagree with them are wrong. or worse, that they're arguing in bad faith. i think they're dumb, but it's definitely what a lot of people believe / it's the way a lot of people act. even otherwise normal/pleasant people (regarding politics). ~a
[2019-11-18 10:56:53] - paul: a couple more thoughts: 1. you might be being sensitive. again i haven't looked at the source conversation, but i doubt you were told to (even figuratively) "fuck off, troll". then again, maybe you're not being sensitive, i dunno. just a thought. ~a
[2019-11-18 10:56:25] - paul: If you were polite and someone told you to 'fuck off' thats pretty bad. I think there is something to the civility is overrated thing when it comes to certain things like Senate Rules where I think people like McConnel throw norms out the window and depend on civility to keep things going but for facebook posts with people that seems unneeded (two n's? one n?) -Daniel
[2019-11-18 10:47:45] - paul: i'm pretty confident ramon was being a jackass, but i'll look anyway for the sake of argument. . . . hmmm, ok it's part of his private (friends only) feed, which means i can't view it without becoming freinds with him. i don't feel the need to become friends with ramon just to satisfy this discussion. ~a
[2019-11-18 10:46:24] - a: Maybe? 100% of the time I've seen it used it was used in a dumb way.
I agree there are probably lots of legitimate uses for the term, but I suspect it's probably something like "snowflake" where once it comes in contact with political discourse it's going to lose all value. -Paul[2019-11-18 10:44:53] - a: Yah, I agree that you're only getting my side of this and that's a totally unfair way to judge the interaction. If you're interested (although I can't imagine why you would be), you can look up Ramon's Facebook feed for his post about the violence against women act. -Paul
[2019-11-18 10:42:07] - paul: just guessing (i'm only looking at your side of the argument, so that's a thing), some dummy called you a "sealion" and you weren't one. i don't think that's an indictment of the phrase itself, just because one person misused it once. ~a
[2019-11-18 10:40:49] - Daniel: And I get not wanting to get into a political debate, although it seems odd to be posting so much stuff on Facebook then. I don't quite understand not even trying to defend your viewpoint and just immediately telling somebody to get lost. But even then, at least try to be polite about it and not just start calling people trolls. -Paul
[2019-11-18 10:38:56] - Daniel: But sometimes, I saw stuff which just felt like it needed some challenging or just clarification that I wanted to comment on. Each time, I started off with a polite question that gently challenged their beliefs, and pretty much every time I was immediately told to "fuck off, troll". -Paul
[2019-11-18 10:37:31] - Daniel: And that is what frustrates the hell out of me. I've stopped following (not unfriended, but just removed from my news feed) 3 people in the last few years and they were all over the same thing: (1) They would constantly share a bunch of very liberal leaning stuff to Facebook, the vast majority of which I let pass by without comment.... -Paul
[2019-11-18 10:34:23] - Paul: Yeah that doesn't strike me as bad either. If you are sharing stuff on twitter / facebook and not expect comments that seems optimistic? naive? -Daniel
[2019-11-18 10:30:35] - Daniel: Well, I can see how the concept could have merit for people who are constantly pestering others to debate them or defend their views and you just aren't up for it. But in the case when somebody shares an article on Facebook and I ask a single question challenging their views... I don't see how that's troll worthy behavior. -Paul
[2019-11-18 10:29:07] - Xpovos: Maybe? I'm not sure how I'm misunderstanding it. Somebody shared an article. I questioned one of the premises in a polite way. I was told I immediately that I was sealioning (it should be noted that those people offered no defense other than saying I was sealioning). What am I missing? -Paul
[2019-11-18 09:19:28] - daniel/xpovos: you forgot about owning the libs. ~a
[2019-11-18 09:07:25] - I'm not sure I get sealioning as a concept yet but I would partially guess that people just don't want to go through the exercise of defending their position because of two things: 1) lazy 2) don't think it will go anywhere. 1 seems pretty obvious but for 2 like if your some family member is never going to change their mind then why bother type of thing. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 08:43:24] - Paul: Sealioning has been a thing for ages. I think you're misunderstanding it some. Probably best to get it straight from the source. https://wondermark.com/1k62/ I think that comic actually does a better job explaining what it is than people trying to explain the term. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-17 23:57:25] - i do love owning libs. ~a
[2019-11-17 22:27:11] - God, sometimes I can really see why the "own the libs" movement has appeal to so many people. -Paul
[2019-11-17 22:26:28] - Coincidentally, have you guys heard of the term, "Sealioning"? Apparently it's the new hotness for dismissing viewpoints that disagree with your own no matter how politely they're framed because, you see, the politeness is all a trap! Or something. -Paul
[2019-11-17 18:44:44] - Ugh, one more facebook friend on the "unfollow" list. It's a shame. I really though Ramon was above name calling and open to an honest discussion of things. -Paul
[2019-11-16 00:00:47] - a: On my radar are Beirut, Santiago, Barcelona and of course Hong Kong. — Xpovos
[2019-11-15 16:46:48] - in other trump news, does this count as witness tampering? regarding the real-time messages from the president *during* the inquiry, "some of us here take witness tampering very very seriously" (house intelligence committee chairman). don't they usually tell you not to publicly comment on a trial while it's happening? . . . because witness tampering, right? ~a
[2019-11-15 15:52:49] - any thoughts on the stone conviction? will he get pardoned? will trump catch up with nixon (in total staff/campaign criminal convictions)? ~a
[2019-11-15 14:19:27] - (i.e. i like that i can sort list of 2017 Women's March locations by apx attendance) ~a
[2019-11-15 14:14:28] - i agree that is interesting. which protest should i look at? i kinda want a "List" instead of a "Category" since list has information i can sort on and category does not. ~a
[2019-11-15 13:22:11] - TIL about an interesting category page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ongoing_protests -- Xpovos
[2019-11-15 12:35:28] - a: I'm a little surprised there aren't more niche news services like Cheddar. I guess it's still a tough situation to make the economics work. I personally don't watch a ton of news, and prefer podcasts and articles online for my news consumption, but I can see the need still. -Paul
[2019-11-15 12:34:30] - a: Yeah, I feel like sports still has some disruption to go, although I don't know how it will shake out. Will the NFL just sell direct to consumers with their own service? I guess not, but something like Sunday football seems too big to restrict to a single streaming service eventually. -Paul
[2019-11-15 12:32:13] - the holes are: news and sports. and i don't care about sports. so, really it's just news i'm missing. i have no idea why hulu or netflix or whatever aren't able to license live-CNN or live-MSNBC or something (live fox-news?
). my guess is the OG cable companies are still fighting back on that. i'm honestly floored (in a good way) cable companies lost their stranglehold on HBO. ~a[2019-11-15 12:29:34] - paul: yeah. i hope you're right. in the end, though, i like what we have now (even with all the problems we noted) TONS better than what we used to have: i'm, again, agreeing with your twitter rant. ~a
[2019-11-15 12:18:14] - a: Maybe, if 10 years from now there are just 3 or 4 main established players, we might see more cross-licensing deals. You're right about the money aspect. Disney is losing a TON of money in the short term because they lost that "free" licensing money from Netflix and others and instead is spending a ton on their service. -Paul
[2019-11-15 12:17:14] - a: Because that's how you get somebody to sign up for your service: to have a killer show that everybody wants to see and they can only see it on your service (see HBO). -Paul
[2019-11-15 12:16:38] - a: But, to your point, I think maybe in a few years, once things settle down, we might see shows on multiple services. But for right now, all the companies have dreams of starting their own service and so are trying to hog as many exclusives as possible. -Paul
[2019-11-15 12:15:45] - a: Yay! You follow me on Twitter and read my stuff! Or... you saw it on PvtM.... Anyway, I made a similar point on the most recent RD podcast too... -Paul
[2019-11-15 12:11:42] - paul: (i understand the "if" in that statement isn't a guarantee, there will be times where exclusive means more money for the producer, but i feel like it doesn't/shouldn't always be the case) ~a
[2019-11-15 12:11:01] - paul: i'd also like to agree with your twitter rant. (sorry i'm not super twitter-savy or i'd reply there). everything you said, i agree with, but i'd like to add something: i like lots of services and even services with exclusive content, but at the same time i wish more content (tv and movies) was/were shared between the services. *if* you can make more money reselling your movie/tv to multiple services why wouldn't you? ~a
[2019-11-15 10:53:33] - paul: i replied to this post ~a
[2019-11-15 10:13:49] - a: I was worried the opposite. It was up a fair amount at first after hours. I think IQ is going to sink me. -Paul
[2019-11-15 10:08:52] - paul: only barely! i was worried nvda might sink me right here at the end. ~a
[2019-11-15 09:24:53] - a: Still in it? Aren't you winning right now? -Paul
[2019-11-15 09:03:13] - paul: nvda was pretty flat after hours: everything from +2% to -1%. i think it'll probably be down today, but i think i'm still in this. ~a
[2019-11-14 15:23:37] - So GOOGL could be going up, but I don't think the current Stadia news is helping any, either now or mid-term. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-14 15:23:12] - My call was that GOOGL stock would climb with a net benefit above other market forces as a result of Stadia revenues and expected revenues. GOOGL is up in that time period, about 10%. But I don't think that's market-beating. It's also such a small part of their revenue as to not move the needle yet. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-14 14:46:06] - Xpovos: I can't remember your Stadia call. I was doubtful of it because I thought they might cancel it, right? -Paul
[2019-11-14 14:15:01] - My Stadia call may have been a little off. They can right this ship, but... oof. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-11-14-reading-google-stadias-ama-is-like-watching-a-train-crash-everyone-is-weirdly-happy-to-be-involved-in -- Xpovos
[2019-11-14 13:06:02] - mig: interesting. i guess i'll admit i know a lot less about gorsuch compared to kavenaugh, but at first pass he seems like a great pick. of course, the history of gorsuch vs garlin is kinda shitty, but that's not gorsuch's fault, and whoever was placed in that first slot was going to be forever tainted by the garlin bullshit. gorsuch's first call after nomination was to garlin, that's a stand up move imo! ~a
[2019-11-14 13:01:14] - xpovos: i'll hear multiple definitions of "positive" change. if you can state something specific he's done that is positive, i can be convinced even if it goes against traditional democratic values. i disagree with democrats on a lot of stuff. ~a
[2019-11-14 11:31:30] - Xpovos: Very true. -Daniel
[2019-11-14 11:31:08] - mig: Ugh. Debate-able. But I think that highlights what I think people would point to and the reason that people might still vote for Trump. That judicial appointments have become more partisan or aware by the general public so getting SC appointments and federal judges might be sufficient to vote for any R regardless of whether its Trump or not. -Daniel
[2019-11-14 11:30:04] - a: Also, definitions of "positive" change based on political persuasion here. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-14 10:52:40] - a: positive of the Trump presidency - Neil Gorsuch. - mig
[2019-11-14 10:47:17] - yah. ~a
[2019-11-14 10:45:09] - a: Sure, but I do worry sometimes that the words mask the actions. Like, because he's such a loud and obnoxious jerk, it sucks all the air out of media coverage so we can't objectively measure his policies (which, to be clear, are also pretty bad, but I think are less bad than his rhetoric makes it seem, if that makes any sense). -Paul
[2019-11-14 10:23:46] - "actual policies and stuff" i'm talking about both. when he talks, his words have consequences: and i think positive words can have positive consequences. but also, if you ignore all the words, i'm scrounging for positive actions that he's personally made. ~a
[2019-11-14 10:15:56] - paul: no i didn't hear about that. it's all pretty funny i guess, but i'm not sure anything real will come of it. ~a
[2019-11-14 10:15:44] - a: Sure, I'm happy to grant you that pretty much any time he opens his mouth or tweets, it's a bad thing, but I guess I thought you were mostly talking about actual policies and stuff. -Paul
[2019-11-14 10:14:13] - paul: lots. *all* of the things he says hurt, and none of the things he says helps. when it's not divisive, it's boldly self serving. if you ignore what he says, and only look at what he does, it's hard to attribute things without looking at private conversations. and none of the private conversations we've seen seem to point to positive outcomes. ~a
[2019-11-14 10:12:08] - a: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/13/lawmaker-posts-cryptic-jeffrey-epstein-message-during-impeachment-hearing Also, did you hear about this? -Paul
[2019-11-14 10:11:26] - a: Right, but that goes back to my original point. What CAN we attribute to him? I guess the awful public image and treatment of world leaders. Probably the family separation stuff. Epstein's death?
-Paul[2019-11-14 10:06:49] - a: Man, IQ is killing me. It has given back basically all of the gains it got from the earnings report. Oddly enough, I actually thought it was a bad earnings report and couldn't figure out why it jumped so much. Maybe a sign I should've sold some.
-Paul[2019-11-14 10:06:47] - right. i feel like some of the positive things from the administration have had little to do with him. and back when he was the ceo of trump international or whatever, i think most of the things they managed were . . . bad? or at least managed badly? if i ignore all of the bad, i'm really struggling to think of anything. i'm trying to be fair, and i still fail? ~a
[2019-11-14 10:04:33] - a: Or if it's just a happy coincidence that he appointed the right person or happened to talk to the right person last or whatever. -Paul
[2019-11-14 10:03:53] - a: Fair. I guess my point is that I just don't have a lot of confidence that any of the good (or at least less bad) things that have come out of his administration have much to do with him directly. -Paul
[2019-11-14 10:01:39] - being distracting is not a good thing imo. if you have good policy, distracting people doesn't feel like the right way to promote that policy. "it's kinda unknowable" i don't agree. sometimes private conversations become public: it's hard to know things like this, but i doubt i'd call it "unknowable". ~a
[2019-11-14 09:59:41] - a: I suppose one could say he has been distracting enough to let those good things happen? Maybe? -Paul
[2019-11-14 09:59:22] - a: Um... Well, I think there have been some some good things have happened during his presidency, but it's kinda unknowable how much of it is attributable to Trump. -Paul
[2019-11-14 09:43:46] - this link has some ideas, but i don't see anything there about prison reform. maybe that didn't pan out? ~a
[2019-11-14 09:43:25] - so, i got to thinking . . . does trump have any redeeming qualities? like if you ignore all the bad is there anything left? does his presidency have anything positive going for it that can actually be attributed to trump? releasing prisoners from prison is a good thing, but i'm not sure he's done that. even if you focus on his charitable works, that seems to be a problem area for him too. thoughts? ~a
[2019-11-14 09:39:19] - we shall see. i'm excited! ~a
[2019-11-14 09:38:57] - a: After market close? If AMD is any indication, then I should be worried, but I still think there's a chance for a bad report. We shall see. -Paul
[2019-11-14 09:37:27] - nvda quarterly report is today! are you excited? ~a
[2019-11-14 09:37:25] - only one of those is on the stock market challenge
~a[2019-11-13 15:34:57] - a: Disney up 7.4% right now. Netflix down 3% and iQiyi down 4%. Coincidence?
-Paul[2019-11-13 14:45:23] - a: I haven't been following it pretty much at all. Sorry. You'll need to keep me up to date.
-Paul[2019-11-13 14:26:07] - public impeachment proceedings today. pretty normal so far, imo. ~a
[2019-11-13 11:31:03] - a: Luckily, Bluehost seems to be pretty good at keeping Wordpress updated for me. -Paul
[2019-11-13 09:57:30] - so, here's my only experience with wordpress: if wordpress doesn't get upgraded, people will hack your wordpress install and (try to) send out emails from your vm. less an issue with upgrading php, and more an issue with upgrading wordpress . . . but yeah, i don't use wordpress anymore
thank goodness it matters not that i haven't updated our website in over 4 years. ~a[2019-11-13 09:34:48] - Does anybody here have experience with Wordpress and/or Bluehost? For the past few weeks or so, I've had a warning on the Wordpress dashboard telling me I should update my version of PHP, but it's not clear to me how I do that. I was hoping bluehost would go ahead and do it for me, but now I'm worried they won't. -Paul
[2019-11-12 13:54:52] - agreed. ~a
[2019-11-12 13:54:31] - There's also degrees to unhappiness as well. I suspect if everybody were to be honest with themselves, a lot of people would be unhappy to some degree if their children married somebody from the "wrong" party, but I also suspect most would get over it quickly if it was a good person. -Paul
[2019-11-12 13:27:33] - i think if you told my wife that her sibling or her sibling-in-law was going to marry a republican, she'd be unhappy. i don't know about my parents though, i have a hard time imagining they would be unhappy. ~a
[2019-11-12 13:25:01] - 40% is pretty low, imo. i think it would be nice if it was lower, of course, but it's not as high as i would have guessed. ~a
[2019-11-12 12:55:24] - We've found a replacement for miscegenation. "In 1960, less than 5 percent of Democrats and Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their children married someone from the other party; today, 35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats would be, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute/Atlantic poll—far higher than the percentages that object to marriages crossing the boundaries of race and religion." -- Xpovos
[2019-11-12 12:46:30] - to compare dividend payers with non-dividend payers is interesting to me. i recently bought a few shares of nobl, i mentioned them a month ago. ~a
[2019-11-12 11:25:42] - oh i see, you were trying to . . . understand the chart regardless of our earlier conversation. i don't know if the chart has a "point", i only posted it because it shows that there were times in the past where s&p500 dividends were *very* high. (also there were times in the past where bond yields were *very* high. i don't think it's meant to compare the two vehicles) ~a
[2019-11-12 11:14:35] - a: Oh, sure, dividends count. I didn't mean to imply they didn't or shouldn't. -Paul
[2019-11-12 11:13:54] - a: Heh, I can't buy any more shares of KushCo because Merrill apparently considers it a penny stock (which, to be fair, I suppose by some definitions it is). -Paul
[2019-11-12 11:09:48] - it's not a matter of dividend payers outperforming the market. it's . . . will dividends ever change who wins? which is an unrelated event. or the opposite argument: are dividends negligible? i will always say "no". ~a
[2019-11-12 11:05:09] - a: It's not 100% clear to me how to interpret your chart. I know there are certainly some long periods of time where dividend payers outperform the market in general and that we could be in one of those time periods now. -Paul
[2019-11-12 10:39:11] - paul: i was just looking at this graph earlier this morning. you and i often pick low-dividend "growth" stocks, but in the long run, dividends meaning the difference between winning and losing is really high. ~a
[2019-11-12 10:34:02] - a: Would be crazy if it came down to your NVDA dividend.
-Paul[2019-11-12 10:22:32] - paul: 3924 to 3927. we keep bouncing back and forth on who's in first. ~a
[2019-11-12 09:53:21] - i imagined lots of abandoned stuff, but i guess that's because most movies are about a post-apocalypse. the non-post-apocalypse break-down of society is probably a lot less romantic. ~a
[2019-11-12 09:52:14] - scruples might be a flexible thing in your black swan future. i'm guessing starvation is painful. also . . . bolt cutters can be used to consume abandoned consumables. ~a
[2019-11-12 09:50:12] - Is the idea behind bolt cutters so that you guys can steal stuff? I guess that's a good argument for a gun.... keep you unscrupulous types away from my stuff.
-Paul[2019-11-12 09:37:29] - paul: during the "lost decade" i think bonds would have been useful (maybe not a solution to the "problem" but useful and much better than nothing). ~a
[2019-11-12 09:37:28] - xpovos: yeah i have a dirt bike, but i think without gasoline, a bicycle might actually be more useful. no gun and no bolt cutters. i think bolt cutters might be a good idea, though
~a[2019-11-12 09:32:30] - a: I do still think a Japanese style lost decade for the US is possible and something to be planned for, though. -Paul
[2019-11-12 09:32:06] - aXpovos: So basically the "likely" scenarios are things go on generally as they have or things are so bad that alternative investments won't mean squat? That makes a certain degree of sense, I suppose. -Paul
[2019-11-12 09:04:39] - My father's advice on this, when I aksed similar questions, because I think like Paul and have for a while, is that "if the world collapses so badly as to crash the market entirely like that, we'll have bigger problems to worry about than not having any money." So, plan for the worst cases within the range of tolerable bad cases. And for those intolerable bad cases: a gun, and some bolt cutters. Food and water too, of course. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-12 08:15:39] - however, i'm not sure if gold or crypto will help you there either. if society truly comes crumbling down, gold and crypto will become useless at some point too. ~a
[2019-11-12 08:14:52] - i know you're talking about an event that probably doesn't exist in the (recent) united states past, but (10y) bond yields have never gone below -8%, so you're talking about an event worse than a "crash" or "crisis" or "collapse" like we know of it today. i'll grant you that i'm mostly covered for a bad event from the last 100 years of history, but i'll be in trouble if something worse comes along. ~a
[2019-11-11 16:28:26] - a: Yeah, but I think the experts are mostly focused on those most likely outcomes like the stock market continues averaging ~8% a year and there isn't some black swan type of event. I'm thinking of the opposite, where SOME kind of huge collapse happens. -Paul
[2019-11-11 13:15:45] - now, granted, i think that's insanely conservative, so they have an calculator which suggests that, yes, 15% bonds for 2040 is probably a little too conservative. it suggests closer to a 90/10 split. ~a
[2019-11-11 13:15:19] - i think about it a lot too. which is why i kinda trust the experts: what do the experts say about asset allocation? vanguard says if you wanna retire in 2040, you should put 85% in stocks, and 15% in bonds. link. ~a
[2019-11-11 13:10:30] - a: I spend a lot of time (probably too much) thinking about things like that. -Paul
[2019-11-11 13:10:14] - a: Like, would I rather have $2 million in my retirement funds when I retire but be completely screwed in the case of a total stock market collapse? Or have $1.8 million dollars but not starve to death in the case of calamity X? -Paul
[2019-11-11 13:09:06] - a: I guess I worry, as the percentage of my net-worth tied to the stock market gets higher and higher, about the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of some time of lost decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)) or even worse that I should be hedging against.... somehow. -Paul
[2019-11-11 13:06:42] - paul: will gold and bullets and crypto do better than bonds on the short terms? i vote, probably nah. ~a
[2019-11-11 13:06:40] - paul: your way is fine. you're mostly focused on the long-term, and not as much on the short term. the only reason i don't use your strategy is: real estate often does worse than bonds in the short term and as i get closer to retirement, i have to be concerned with the short term and SORR (sequence-of-returns risk). ~a
[2019-11-11 12:58:47] - a: Like, if I had my 4 things, I wouldn't be totally screwed if a market crash and real estate crash happened at the same time (maybe). -Paul
[2019-11-11 12:58:04] - a: Hmmm, I guess I'm thinking of it slightly differently and not necessarily as a matter of rebalancing over time. For example, assume that calamity X could suddenly happen tomorrow (stock market crash, hyperinflation, real estate crash, total societal breakdown, etc), what diverse mixture of assets could protect you from the majority of those? -Paul
[2019-11-11 12:54:47] - paul: for the present, it's fine you don't have bonds. i think as you get closer to retirement, it'll be inefficient to still have zero bonds. here's why: moving money from real-estate to the stock market (or from the stock market to real-estate) for re-balancing after a crash is usually problematic. ~a
[2019-11-11 11:50:53] - a: I think my personal list (keep in mind I'm not saying an equal distribution) is: Global index fund, real estate, cryptocurrency, precious metals. Is it wrong that I don't include cash or bonds or treasuries? -Paul
[2019-11-11 11:49:56] - a: (3) Crytpocurrency in case of monetary collapse (4) Gold (bullets, foodstuffs, etc?) in case of completely civilization collapse. Others? -Paul
[2019-11-11 11:49:08] - a: How many different investment vehicles (including which ones) do you think are sufficient for diversification to protect against the most likely downside events in our lifetimes? For example: (1) Global index fund for the optimistic case where things go okay (2) Real estate in case of market crash... -Paul
[2019-11-08 13:45:33] - a: Nope. He doesn't like responding to my emails.
-Paul[2019-11-08 13:45:09] - did dewey reply to your email about sc2? ~a
[2019-11-08 13:03:45] - it's too late for me to buy a new graphics card now. ~a
[2019-11-08 11:38:31] - a: That could be the differentiator, then. Do you feel lucky?
-Paul[2019-11-08 11:16:14] - nvda happens next week (thursday). ~a
[2019-11-08 11:10:50] - a: I don't think it's necessarily as set as you might think. You can usually find when the last (or next) earnings report is by a google search. I checked mine and I think they're all done. -Paul
[2019-11-08 11:06:08] - oh man, i'm just now realizing we have double-overlap. do quarterly reports happen on a set schedule every quarter? last report from nflx was mid-october, amd was late october, nvda was mid-august. so i think nvda is the only one left until 2020? ~a
[2019-11-08 11:02:03] - a: If they're all done, then it might come down to how Netflix holds up once we get any kind of insight into the popularity of Disney+ (assuming we get any kind of preliminary numbers this year). -Paul
[2019-11-08 11:01:08] - a: So, considering our overlap, we're basically looking at IQ, TDOC, and MELI vs AMD, NVDA, and NFLX? Do any of those have any earnings reports left to go? I think mine are done. -Paul
[2019-11-08 10:53:38] - paul: 3831bp to 3832bp. things aren't shaking out. ~a
[2019-11-07 12:51:33] - a: Eh, I think so. Letters still feel like they have the air of being more official and taking more time and having more thought put into them and maybe even having an editor look it over (if you're a public official). Tweets still feel like something you can swype out in a few seconds (typos and all) without much thought or oversight. -Paul
[2019-11-07 12:49:48] - no, i am not just realizing this, of course. i'm just re-reminded every once and a while. . . . morally, is there anything different between tweeting something and using the official letterhead of the president? ironically, i think many more people are going to read the tweets than anything he puts on paper. ~a
[2019-11-07 12:42:47] - a: You're just now realizing this? Those actually seem pretty tame compared to other stuff he's tweeted... or hell... stuff sent out under the official letterhead of the president. -Paul
[2019-11-07 12:27:13] - paul: donald trump twitter. yesterday: "Stock Markets (all three) hit another ALL TIME & HISTORIC HIGH yesterday! You are sooo lucky to have me as your President (just kidding!). Spend your money well!" today: "Stock Market up big today. A New Record. Enjoy!". something about this twitter channel seems petty and beneath the office of the president. ~a
[2019-11-07 11:22:18] - a: See it. Will get back to you. Gotta catch up on some work.
-Paul[2019-11-07 11:11:44] - paul: i added a comment to pvstm. ~a
[2019-11-07 11:04:56] - paul: i think a hard thing for me to do is: is the market overvaluing a *good* asset? i.e. are there any situations where i should sell (or refuse to buy) a good company? ~a
[2019-11-07 11:03:55] - paul: agreed. it's a much better way to make money, imo. in fact, it might be the only way to beat the market repeatably. ~a
[2019-11-07 11:02:48] - a: Yeah, and that's not my game (trying to predict short term movements). I find it much easier to try to figure out where a company might be in 3+ years vs where it might be a few hours from now. -Paul
[2019-11-07 11:02:03] - a: Oh, I'm stupid, I misread the spreadsheet for Amazon. It's not flat for the year, it's up 20%. I KNEW that sounded wrong. -Paul
[2019-11-07 10:56:22] - really . . . you have to be able to predict investors as much as you have to predict the investments themselves. find out what's not being valued correctly by investors. ~a
[2019-11-07 10:53:58] - yeah i think that's sort-of the point too. if it were repeatable, people would start to make money off of it, so then therefore it would stop being repeatable!
~a[2019-11-07 10:43:43] - a: Well, it's repeatable until it's not.
I feel like it would need to be happen pretty much every time for that to work, and I have no confidence it will continue to do that in future earnings reports. -Paul[2019-11-07 10:42:52] - a: Amazon almost always has low EPS and a high P/E. I guess maybe we're seeing a slowdown in AWS growth, which is spooking some people, but their advertising growth seems to be taking off. -Paul
[2019-11-07 10:39:52] - "Redfin seems to jump immediately on good earnings only to fall soon after" if this pattern were indeed repeatable (with some degree of certainty above, say, 50%) you could make money on that pattern. ~a
[2019-11-07 10:36:22] - amazon is flat, sure, but their p/e is very high and their eps is very low. i suspect their price will continue to stay flat until their earnings change. ~a
[2019-11-07 10:21:50] - a: There's still a few months for things to shake out. Can't believe Amazon is basically flat YTD. Might have to re-pick again next year. Also can never figure out why Redfin seems to jump immediately on good earnings only to fall soon after. -Paul
[2019-11-07 09:51:05] - in other basis point news. hopefully the state legislature doesn't decide the governors race . . . that sounds like a bad idea. ~a
[2019-11-07 09:48:18] - paul: 3900‱ to 3910‱. it's going to come down to basis points again, won't it? ~a
[2019-11-06 16:43:42] - a: SQ is also reporting, but that doesn't really help me much.
-Paul[2019-11-06 16:43:17] - yikes. yeah 8% would bring us neck-and-neck. ~a
[2019-11-06 16:42:49] - a: So it's possible your victory will be short lived, depending on how that translates to tomorrow. -Paul
[2019-11-06 16:42:05] - a: Ironically enough, IQ is reporting earnings pretty much right now. Up 8% in after hours as of this moment. -Paul
[2019-11-06 16:40:15] - oh nm. you were only winning by 1% at the end of october. i misread that. ~a
[2019-11-06 16:39:01] - yeah. though, 10% is only a 2% difference. not sure where the other 2% difference came from. ~a
[2019-11-06 16:38:21] - a: Yeah, it looks like MELI is down over 10% since October 31st. That's the likely culprit. -Paul
[2019-11-06 16:37:12] - a: MELI has been on a slow but consistent decline for a bit. Not sure I understand why, since they had another awesome earnings report lately. I guess macro-economic concerns and maybe a stock that had run too far ahead of itself? -Paul
[2019-11-06 16:36:22] - a: Oh, wow, I hadn't seen you had passed me. I know you were slowly closing the gap, but I was still (somewhat comfortably) ahead just a few days ago. Not entirely sure what caused the switch. I don't follow AMD / NVDA too closely. Did they have any recent big jumps? I know NFLX has been quiet... -Paul
[2019-11-06 16:19:13] - paul: zomg, have you seen the stock market challenge? i'm not sure when we flipped exactly, but it was probably recently because your update for the end of october still had us 2% apart. i guess meli has had a bad november so far? ~a
[2019-11-06 13:18:15] - a: So... the one I posted from my phone seems to have converted my double to the emdash, that's probably what caused all of this. I rarely do stuff from my phone. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-06 13:17:44] - a: Sorry, not sorry? Heh. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-06 11:06:36] - ΧÏόνος: annoyingly, "Χ" is not the "X" character. so in php, strtolower('Χ') just returns 'Χ'
~a[2019-11-06 10:56:35] - ß Looks like the eszett is already here. So I think I'm good for now. Maybe Cyrillic? -- ΧÏόνος
[2019-11-06 08:45:55] - there, xpovos, i added "—" (emdash) to the list of things you can put in a signature. any other utf i should add?
~a[2019-11-05 21:48:00] - A lot of editors have quashed this story over the years. It isn’t just ABC. — Xpovos
[2019-11-05 20:57:44] - a: Isn't there also a story now about how ABC News apparently had the story on Epstein 3 years ago but squashed it for some reason (maybe to protect the Clintons)? -Paul
[2019-11-05 18:07:30] - a: Sure, I suppose it could be some kind of giant conspiracy, but is it likely? -Paul
[2019-11-05 17:51:04] - a: I was able to find a pdf version of the ballot on.... the fairfax county board of elections? Something like that. -Paul
[2019-11-05 14:37:15] - paul: "unless you believe his previous suicide attempt was faked too" hmmm, now i think there's a lot of question as to whether he ever previously attempted suicide. if you're talking about what happened on july 23rd, his cellmate was charged with four counts of murder. according to nbc, assault from his cellmate wasn't ruled out and one source said the injuries were not serious and could have been staged. ~a
[2019-11-05 10:46:50] - The elections are run by the county, so I'd use your county's office of elections page. If you have any problems, talk to your registrar. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-05 10:43:38] - a: My county mails out a fairly detailed sample with extra information about confusing bits, like our bond referendums. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-05 08:53:28] - xpovos: i kinda got fucked over by ballotpedia. they didn't mention the county board seats! what do you use to find out what the ballot will look like? i feel like this is the best website with info on what was on my ballot, but it was pretty hard to find, and it isn't paired with a system that looks up which district i'm in. ~a
[2019-11-05 06:50:34] - oh yeah. i did almost forget even though i was thinking about it yesterday and it's on my damn calendar. ~a
[2019-11-05 03:43:12] - Remember to vote today. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-01 15:51:33] - Paul: Yeah. Also the development process for Diablo 4 has not been smooth. I've been following it, and I guess the trailers indicate that they made the right decisions in the end, it wasn't pretty. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-01 15:23:47] - paul: epstein did rub elbows with the clintons. i know trump retweeted some bullshit about how epstein had dirt on her husband. which reminds me, trump is such a jackass. ~a
[2019-11-01 15:15:22] - chelsea sounds like her mother. that's pretty expected i guess. ~a
[2019-11-01 15:08:54] - Xpovos: Because of the China thing? -Paul
[2019-11-01 15:08:24] - Diablo 4 announced at Blizzcon. As evidence of how much a small things make a difference, this news, which I ought to be meeting with rapturous hype, is kind of "meh," for me. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-01 14:58:52] - a: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/468478-trevor-noah-jokingly-asks-hillary-clinton-how-did-you-kill-jeffrey-epstein Trevor Noah asking the hard questions for you.
-Paul[2019-11-01 09:33:54] - yah. ~a
[2019-11-01 09:28:27] - a: In May somebody bet on the Nats winning the world series? It was only 60-1?
-Paul[2019-11-01 09:02:25] - yes, i agree in some contexts $6k is nothing. but yeah a fun story. i'd love the excuse to blow $6k out on the town. ~a
[2019-11-01 08:35:19] - a: That sounds amazing. Then you realize that it's "just" $6,000 and even though that's a great story, it's not really a life-changing amount of money. It'll do some good, but in the end it's just cool story material. Nice shot, though. -- Xpovos
[2019-10-31 20:25:11] - https://i.redd.it/8l2i4v9fcxv31.jpg in may somebody put $100 on 60 to 1 odds on dc winning the game. ~a
[2019-10-30 17:14:04] - "caution lights on" whenever i see caution lights i roll my eyes. even in the distance, i'm like . . . 99% chance that's someone stopping in the bike lane. ~a
[2019-10-30 17:08:27] - probably not. ~a
[2019-10-30 17:08:07] - a: Yeah, I feel like no good will come out of that website. -Paul
[2019-10-30 16:53:04] - paul: yah, gotcha. check out rate-driver some time. everything is based on license plates. ~a
[2019-10-30 16:53:01] - a: I'm constantly amazed by how many people just park right in front of a store with their caution lights on when there are parking spots not more than like 20 feet away. -Paul
[2019-10-30 16:52:16] - a: Oh, I know, I just also know that despite that (license plate not private info and pictures of streets are fair game), people still get freaked out about stuff like that, especially in a situation like this where the cars are being "called out". -Paul
prev <-> next