prev <-> next
[2019-12-03 10:53:26] - Daniel: Well, 3 of the spots are set, right? It's between Dave and Tim for the last spot? I'm playing Tim this week, so clearly he's losing and Dave is sneaking in.
-Paul[2019-12-03 10:51:05] - Paul: re: keeper league - champions of the last two years play for championship of this year? Who do you think makes the playoffs? Who do you want to make the playoffs? -Daniel
[2019-12-03 10:48:44] - https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/12/peloton-bike-lady-needs-help-someone-please-help-her?fbclid=IwAR0Krvdki2Fc0liOCYI8YEatjm5XGdKPf9XMjVQNxlu2_CUJogtVl-VqleE Have you guys seen the ad in question? I saw it and was similarly confused, but the theory that the husband is abusive does make it seem to make sense all of a sudden!
-Paul[2019-12-03 10:25:11] - paul: yes. ~a
[2019-12-03 10:22:43] - Paul: possibly. -Daniel
[2019-12-03 09:56:37] - Anybody interested in SC2 this Thursday? -Paul
[2019-12-02 20:03:41] - a: I used your invite link. Not sure if it'll give you any kind of notification about that. -- Xpovos
[2019-12-02 16:44:50] - this is me spamming friends. ~a
[2019-12-02 16:44:35] - a: Me neither, but when I tried looking at a board or whatever, it just tried to get me to spam friends and ask home much I wanted to pay.
-Paul[2019-12-02 16:44:04] - or something. i'm not totally sure. ~a
[2019-12-02 16:43:56] - no. but i think you get on a waiting list. ~a
[2019-12-02 16:43:44] - a: And it costs money, it looks like? -Paul
[2019-12-02 16:40:46] - transparent ones. ~a
[2019-12-02 16:40:39] - editorial boards. ~a
[2019-12-02 16:40:21] - a: I'm not opposed to social networks (as I made obvious in our social media podcasts), but what does this get me that I can't get from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others? -Paul
[2019-12-02 16:37:37] - hey, new social network from the maker of wikipedia! invite link with my referral in it. not sure if you get on a waiting list or not when you use my referral or not, sorry. ~a
[2019-12-02 14:36:30] - a: Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you say, but it also makes it a lot harder to keep track of.
-Paul[2019-12-02 13:17:54] - paul: in other-other words: when dividends are paid out, it's (usually) discounted in the price. so you're basically "stealing" that money from anyone with dividend paying stocks. ~a
[2019-12-02 13:16:54] - paul: "I might want to change the rules to not count dividends" noooooo. veto! it's generally accepted a good practice to reinvest dividends, so i disagree with your conclusion. more importantly: in the method you're using the dividends are *not* reinvested, so your premise has problems too. in other words, the only "wrong" way is to disregard the dividends. ~a
[2019-12-02 13:01:45] - a: That also assumes there is a "right" way. Should that dividend be re-invested? Honestly, with the way I am thinking of transitioning to a shared google sheet to simplify reporting for 2020, I might want to change the rules to not count dividends. We typically aren't picking dividend payers anyway. -Paul
[2019-12-02 12:25:34] - "I still am not sure I am doing it right" technically you're not doing it right, but it's close enough. to do it the "right" way, you have to do a lot more math, AND we kinda have to assume everybody has 0% in taxes.
~a[2019-12-02 12:24:12] - it'll probably be twice that by december 31st (.64 maybe? again, not much but maybe enough). ~a
[2019-12-02 12:23:19] - a: No problem at all. It's a weird thing to try to keep track of and I still am not sure I am doing it right. -Paul
[2019-12-02 12:22:51] - ah, gotcha, sorry. i keep forgetting that you're already including them, sorry. ~a
[2019-12-02 12:22:31] - a: I've been trying to count them in the monthly updates too. I see something like 0.32 for dividends for NVDA and that's it? -Paul
[2019-12-02 12:20:10] - my dividends are *very* small in this challenge, but so is our difference. ~a
[2019-12-02 12:18:47] - paul: (when you do the decmeber standings) please don't forget my dividends, if it changes the winner. ~a
[2019-12-02 11:46:24] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/fantasy-investing-november-2019-standings/ So close... -Paul
[2019-12-02 11:20:51] - a: I agree GDP is an imperfect measure of "goodness". I think it has to be a mixture of life expectancy and per capita GDP and other stuff. -Paul
[2019-12-02 11:00:38] - yeah, that makes logical sense, but it doesn't work for me. there were a *lot* of people at the 10y that i enjoyed seeing, and wouldn't have easily been able to see otherwise: none (almost none?) of those people were at the 20y. which is fine, because i didn't go.
~a[2019-12-02 10:57:17] - a: That's why I often avoid these reunion things. Most people I want to see I see normally. Reunions seem like opportunities to see people who I don't particularly care about seeing. -Paul
[2019-12-02 10:38:39] - paul: so, you agree that happiness and gdp are not (necessarily) correlated? how should we measure happiness? will a survey cut it? i think it might not. because, i feel a survey will only measure how people feel/discuss about their own happiness. i.e. surveys are lacking? ~a
[2019-12-02 10:35:20] - paul: i almost went to the "bar night". in the end, i totally flaked out. but IF i had gone it would have been hilarious that everybody in our group went to different events: you and gurkie at the family day, adrian at the bar night (i'm a flake), and miguel and dewey at the actual event. ~a
[2019-12-02 10:32:16] - a: Ah, got it. Sorry. I thought you meant something else that made no sense. You are right. -Paul
[2019-12-02 10:30:51] - paul: nope. a 2% drop in nflx will bring me from 14% to ~12% ((14%+1)*(1-2%)-1). a 2% drop in AMD will bring me from 111% to 107% ((111%+1)*(1-2%)-1)! . . . think about it differently: it's like we were all given $5. and we all invested $1 into each stock. i still have about $1 worth of nflx but i have about $2 worth of amd. so a 2% drop in amd will hurt me more than a 2% drop in nflx. ~a
[2019-12-02 09:18:59] - a: We went to the alumni day at TJ itself. -Paul
[2019-12-02 09:18:46] - a: I'm not sure I understand your shower thought. The way we score, I don't think you're right, are you? Isn't 2% from AMD the same as 2% from NFLX? -Paul
[2019-12-02 09:17:42] - a: Because your article seems chiefly concerned with the environment and I come from it more from a "people's happiness" point of view. -Paul
[2019-11-29 13:55:30] - is anybody going to the reunion stuff this weekend? ~a
[2019-11-26 13:06:11] - paul: (shower thought) in the stock market challenge, when amd is down 2% that hurts me twice as much as when nflx is down 2%. math is . . . weird. ~a
[2019-11-25 16:55:25] - how so? ~a
[2019-11-25 14:49:15] - a: I think I agree with your article but probably for wildly different reasons.
-Paul[2019-11-25 14:48:07] - a: It's so funny how our 2019 challenge is going in terms of stuff lining up. It's MELI vs AMD (both up 100%+ in 2019). TDOC vs NVDA (68% to 65%) and IQ vs NFLX (29% vs 17%... and both video streamers!). The final two, of course, are the same (AMZN and SQ). -Paul
[2019-11-25 14:46:07] - paul: reminiscent of our convo. thursday: s&p500 != size of the gdp != happiness of the population. each of these three things are independent of each-other. article that discusses that the gdp is a dumb measure: "if we measure the wrong thing," warns joseph stiglitz, "we will do the wrong thing". ~a
[2019-11-25 13:14:44] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/24/bristol-myers-squibb-celgene-slide-after-announcing-delay-in-deal.html Not sure it has closed yet. -Paul
[2019-11-25 13:14:13] - "I honestly thought it had gotten bought out" that probably explains the discrepancy. sometimes when things get taken off the market, the different financial trackers treat the symbol of shit differently. ~a
[2019-11-25 13:13:31] - a: *Shrug* Not sure. It does that sometimes. -Paul
[2019-11-25 13:13:15] - a: Uh... something wrong with your spreadsheet? It should only be at like 108. I honestly thought it had gotten bought out. -Paul
[2019-11-25 13:13:14] - ah nm. google finance is just broken. why does google finance say 1426/share on celg? ~a
[2019-11-25 13:11:43] - a: Ah, no, sorry. I could share it with you if you like. What are you specifically interested in? -Paul
[2019-11-25 13:11:27] - jesus, what happened to celg. just noticing the 20x on that. ~a
[2019-11-25 13:11:03] - paul: i don't see that anywhere. is it public? ~a
[2019-11-25 13:07:43] - I don't know why it took me so long to do this, but I added an up-to-the-minute tracker on my Freedom Portfolio tracking spreadsheet to see how I'm doing against the market (defined as the SP500TR ticker, or S&P 500 Total Returns). I did it because today has been a good day (up 1.6%!)... and yet I'm still trailing 7% since inception to 9%. -Paul
[2019-11-25 11:52:57] - a: Also, AMD is a MUCH bigger return right now. Man, it's crazy. 20x return in like 3-4 years! -Paul
[2019-11-25 11:52:09] - a: Maybe. I'm not kicking myself at all. I know virtually nothing about the company and it was easy for me to see a scenario where that reaction was warranted and more pain is to come. AMD is a company I'm kicking myself over, because I knew the company and thought they had a chance for a comeback, but was scared off. -Paul
[2019-11-25 11:50:37] - yeah, i noticed that earlier this morning, and i was def kicking myself. now that free trades are a thing, buying like $250 worth of a company obviously worth something, and with an obvious overreaction, would have been a good move. ~a
[2019-11-25 11:48:22] - a: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/3313.HK?p=3313.HK Looks like that company from a few days ago was a buying opportunity.
-Paul[2019-11-25 10:33:55] - yah. free trades seems to be the standard nowadays. ~a
[2019-11-25 10:10:15] - a: At least you're still getting free trades. -Paul
[2019-11-25 09:40:27] - paul: good thing you didn't stay with scottrade. yet another (annoying) acquisition. ~a
[2019-11-22 13:16:35] - paul: that's (more or less) correct. [the more or less part is: if the things being hashed are small, (or otherwise guessable), you can go the other way by iteratively trying things that you think *might* be the result] ~a
[2019-11-22 13:13:32] - a: ""hashed" uuids can definitely be guessed if the things hashed are public". Just to clarify, though, it doesn't go the other way, right? If you have the hashed thing, it's virtually impossible to figure out the original, right? -Paul
[2019-11-22 13:07:47] - xpovos: uuids don't attempt to solve issues with bad actors. ("random" uuids probably don't use cryptographically random numbers, also "hashed" uuids can definitely be guessed if the things hashed are public) ~a
[2019-11-22 13:03:31] - a: Unless you have bad actors, right? I guess that gets to Paul's question more about the algorithmic production of them. I don't know that algorithm. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-22 13:02:23] - paul: they address that as well. there's enough bits that chance of collision is negligible (even accounting for the birthday problem). worded differently, every computer on the planet could generate millions of these a second, and you still would get approximately zero collisions across the world. ~a
[2019-11-22 12:59:26] - a: If it's not centrally created, do you just have to hope you avoid a conflict when creating a random one? -Paul
[2019-11-22 12:59:17] - it also means, the systems that relay the data don't have to care. which is the world i'm in: i'm getting unique and not-unique data from a system, and trying to relay it, but since there are no uuids, i have to be like, "well now what?" ~a
[2019-11-22 12:57:53] - which is what's great about uuid. you don't have to centrally locate the creation of them. ~a
[2019-11-22 12:57:26] - paul: maybe coming from two different systems. ~a
[2019-11-22 12:57:11] - a: That's weird. I can't imagine why we would use both. Probably a good reason. -Paul
[2019-11-22 12:57:09] - Version "3" uses MD5 as the hashing algorithm ~a
[2019-11-22 12:56:22] - paul: "3" means hash. "4" means random. ~a
[2019-11-22 12:56:07] - a: Looks like it is usually (always?) either 3 or 4. -Paul
[2019-11-22 12:55:50] - "I suspect it's a hash of some other data" sometimes it is. and sometimes it's random. if you look at that middle group of "4" it'll tell you how to make one using that "version"). ~a
[2019-11-22 12:55:17] - paul: (look back at your random data). look at the middle group of four. what is the first character? (it's probably a "4", like you see in my example. but, everything between "1" and "5" is allowed) ~a
[2019-11-22 12:53:35] - a: How would I create one for the data I work with? I never have had to. If I had to guess, I suspect it's a hash of some other data. -Paul
[2019-11-22 12:52:10] - a: (Looking at a random one from some data). I see: 8 alphanumeric characters. Hyphen. 4. Hyphen. 4. Hyphen. 4. Hyphen. 12. Never realized, but yeah, it looks hexadecimal and not spanning all the letters. -Paul
[2019-11-22 12:50:49] - paul: let me ask you though, you don't understand the difference, that's fine, but how would you *create* one then? ~a
[2019-11-22 12:50:20] - paul: ok, if it follows more, or less, that pattern of hexidecimal hyphened data, it's probably a uuid. ~a
[2019-11-22 12:46:41] - a: I think we use UUIDs where I work, but I admittedly don't know if I understand the difference between that and another long string of alpha-numeric characters broken up by hyphens.
-Paul[2019-11-22 12:44:32] - paul: d0ef1980-abb3-4a7f-b9c1-9a946386c1c7 is the format usually used between systems. (this is a "version 4" uuid, also known as a random uuid, but any of the versions are fine with me) ~a
[2019-11-22 12:41:45] - paul: it's a type, sure, but it's also a specification. it's more than a concept, it's a specific implementation. but yeah, locally unique is one alternative. (and locally unique has its place: not between systems, imo). ~a
[2019-11-22 12:40:21] - a: Oh, I see, they are locally unique identifiers. -Paul
[2019-11-22 12:39:36] - a: Isn't "UUIDS" just a name for a type of identifier? What kind of identification are they using that aren't UUIDS? -Paul
[2019-11-22 11:30:22] - xpovos: understood. and i think there's a place for locally unique ids too. but between systems it seems less useful and more . . . annoying? ~a
[2019-11-22 11:23:12] - a: No, but I feel like we probably ought to be. We use locally unique ids instead. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-22 11:18:49] - do you guys use uuids at work for anything? there's so many cases where i'm dealing with APIs between systems (like, over the internet) that are providing identification that aren't uuids, and i'm like . . . "why aren't you using uuids?" ~a
[2019-11-22 10:21:57] - Paul: Server. We've got several channels going, but nothing too crazy. https://discord.gg/m3YRQA invite link if people want it. That one's good for 24 hours. If you want in and the invite is dead, let me know. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-22 10:19:59] - i have a feeling the target demographic will be even less interested. ~a
[2019-11-22 10:02:45] - a: No, but I also don't think I'm the target demographic. No interest in an electric pick-up truck. -Paul
[2019-11-22 09:58:06] - i'm not impressed. are you? ~a
[2019-11-22 09:50:47] - I guess people weren't impressed with the cyber truck reveal for Tesla.
-Paul[2019-11-22 09:43:33] - Rampant discourse has a discord... uh... server? Channel? Something? Xpovos can speak to it more, if anybody here cares. -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:38:37] - https://medium.com/@russroberts/health-care-without-much-government-bf4c57b515b6 This is pretty long, but I thought it was incredibly well-written and sums up my thoughts on our health care system better than I ever could. -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:16:20] - paul: maybe. ~a
[2019-11-21 16:15:45] - paul: yes. but my estimation of future earnings can be large even if my growth is zero. ~a
[2019-11-21 16:15:40] - a: OVERpopulation, you could be right. I guess I think we're pretty far from that as a country. -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:14:31] - a: Isn't an estimation of future earnings a part of growth? -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:14:29] - paul: as overpopulation becomes a "problem" then there will be increased likelihood that people will become criminals and invalids (i'd add "financially destitute" to your list). ~a
[2019-11-21 16:13:03] - Xpovos: But for anybody living in Japan... life was kinda awesome. They have deflation, so things are constantly getting cheaper instead of more expensive. They have a really advanced economy with great technological innovations. Around zero population growth meant near full employment. It's kinda what everybody would want. -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:11:41] - Xpovos: This might not be what you're getting at, but I do think I have done a bad job of sounding like I associate a bigger economy with a better one. There was one article (again, about Japan) that really stuck with me that talked about how by some metrics, Japan's economy was in trouble because it was shrinking and all the growth numbers were going the wrong way... -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:11:35] - xpovos: i don't agree. a stock's price has little to do with "growth". it's more tied to "earnings" and . . . an estimation of "future earnings"? nothing about growth. otherwise spinoffs / spinouts / divestitures would not be common, right? ~a
[2019-11-21 16:10:15] - a: Maybe? I'm sure there are some situations where you are right, but I also think that in general more people = bigger economy. That's why immigration is a boon and should be encouraged. Sure, if 100% of those new people were criminals or invalids or something, then my logic might not hold true, but I don't see any reason to suspect that in the future. -Paul
[2019-11-21 16:08:19] - In my opinion, the stock market over-rewards companies that grow vs. those that are profitable. I think that's the most succinct way to phrase it. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-21 16:07:35] - I'm not sure this sufficiently answers a's question, but it's the best I've been able to come up with in a fair bit of time. "we need a new market paradigm that doesn't rely on growth." I don't JUST mean that in terms of population growth. The relentless pursuit of profits and growth has done some amazing things in capitalist terms, but I believe it doesn't do everything and that it brings harm at the same time. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-21 15:55:01] - ok, fair.
but it points to much less ridiculous concerns: perfectly real and normal situations where people *will* be a *drain* on the economy. and that will happen (in addition to) the ecology causing (additional) problems to the economy. ~a[2019-11-21 15:52:56] - a: I don't understand that criticism. Just because I say that eating more food causes weight gain, that doesn't mean that I think it's possible to eat an infinite amount of food to gain an infinite amount of weight. Yes, I suspect my theory might break down if the number of people approaches the number of atoms in the universe. -Paul
[2019-11-21 15:43:25] - paul: "It just seemed obvious to me that the most obvious path to an increasing stock market is a growing economy, and that a growing economy relies on a growing population and/or population that continues to spend more" that seems strictly non-obvious to me. in fact it seems completely impossible in some situations (see andrew's example "number of humans attempting to live on this planet is equal to the number of atoms on the planet") ~a
[2019-11-21 15:42:10] - a: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/artgo-worlds-best-performing-stock-98-percent-price-drop-2019-11-1028708885 I think the market cap was closer to $6 billion? But I am not clear if that was USD or not. -Paul
[2019-11-21 15:41:05] - no kidding. did they update the market cap? . . . or was the market cap 47B yesterday? ~a
[2019-11-21 15:40:35] - a: Also, sorry, I got sidetracked by work. Japan is the only example I can think of. No need to study up on economics just to satisfy my random theory. It just seemed obvious to me that the most obvious path to an increasing stock market is a growing economy, and that a growing economy relies on a growing population and/or population that continues to spend more. -Paul
[2019-11-21 15:39:17] - https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/3313.HK?p=3313.HK&.tsrc=fin-srch That's a helluva ride for a stock whose market cap is large enough that it can't really be considered a penny stock. -Paul
[2019-11-21 14:22:30] - Note: I had a long answer, which I deleted because I found contradictory evidence. I'll need to rework it. Be back in a bit (I hope). -- Xpovos
[2019-11-21 14:04:51] - "new market paradigm that doesn't rely on growth" what makes you think our market depends on (strictly positive) population growth? ~a
[2019-11-21 14:02:40] - ... we won't be able to. How many more doublings will we need until the number of humans attempting to live on this planet is equal to the number of atoms on the planet. Obviously that's farcical, it breaks long before then. But quick math is: only 100-150 (assuming ~10^50 atoms, I get ~138.) If we get three doublings a decade, that's 500 years? Clearly, unsustainable. So we need a new market paradigm that doesn't rely on growth. -- Xpovo
[2019-11-21 13:58:43] - We could be a million cycles off, but I have grave concerns about growth-based metrics. They are, as far as the apparent laws of science are concerned, unsustainable. I'm highly in favor of population growth, but I'm also highly in favor of colonization of non-Earth planets, and I think those two things work really well together. Diversify our stock as it were. In the meantime we can handle more cycles of growth, but eventually... -- Xpovos
[2019-11-21 13:30:07] - i can, though, if you'd like. i'd have to learn a lot more about economics first, though. for instance: yeah it didn't work so well in japan. but is japan just one example? are there others? ~a
[2019-11-21 13:23:38] - again, i'm not arguing that under-population is good. ~a
[2019-11-21 13:23:05] - https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/why-is-japans-economy-shrinking/ "Getting growth from an ageing, shrinking society is difficult." -Paul
[2019-11-21 13:21:20] - a: Hmmm, but I still don't think those have to do with the size of the economy. Again, I point to Japan as a great example. Their economy has gotten more efficient, more sustainable, their standard of living is great and nobody would say their economy is in shambles or anything, but it does seem undeniable that it is getting smaller because of their population problems. -Paul
[2019-11-21 13:19:03] - paul: "not the health or sustainability of it" if all you care about is *short* term economy size, then sure look only at revenue or earnings or population or something like that. *long* term, is different. you (imo) need to look at efficiency. sustainability. etc. ~a
[2019-11-21 13:18:07] - a: Because if population growth is zero, and people are buying less and less stuff.... I'm not sure how the economy grows in size with less stuff being sold overall. -Paul
[2019-11-21 13:16:37] - a: Without passing judgment on whether it is smart or makes sense, I think if somebody was solely concerned with the size of the economy getting bigger, you would want the population to keep increasing AND for individuals to keep spending more to buy more stuff. -Paul
[2019-11-21 13:16:01] - a: I think maybe we're talking about slightly different things? I'm solely focused on the size of the economy (as a proxy for how the stock market might go up in response) and not the health or sustainability of it. -Paul
[2019-11-21 11:20:06] - paul: (without studying the issue too much) i think the most sustainable situation is zero (ish) worldwide population growth. the growth we've seen in the last 100 years is crazy high: we've seen the population double, and then double again, and almost double a third time. (guessing here) for everything to catch up, i think sustaining a zero-ish population growth is the best for everything (economy, ecology, society in general). ~a
[2019-11-21 11:19:41] - paul: important details: you're dropped out the efficiency of consumption. (many, but not all) fire members are interested in consuming more efficiently. buy stuff that will last a long time . . . only buy what you need . . . buy fewer things that will fail quickly and would need replacing earlier. this will help the long term economy, not hurt it. do you disagree with this? if so, i can go into more detail on why this is the case. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:58:02] - a: Sorry, didn't mean to mis-represent. What important details did I leave out? As for the under-population thing, I guess I incorrectly assume that based on your comments about over-population. So we're at some happy medium now where our current population is sustainable but more (or much more) would be bad? -Paul
[2019-11-21 10:46:04] - . . . also, where did "less people" come from? i never said less people was good, or under-population was good. only that under-population isn't currently a problem in the united states. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:40:50] - paul: well if you remove all of the important details, i guess it does sound like a crappy plan. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:39:26] - a: So, wait, your argument is that less people buying less stuff is going to lead to a larger economy and on the flip side, more people buying more stuff will lead to a smaller one? That sounds like the opposite of what I normally hear about our consumption economy. -Paul
[2019-11-21 10:37:51] - paul: same idea with the overpopulation movement. environmental crisis, even if it somehow didn't directly translate to economic crisis (it will), overpopulation will still create more direct economic issues: how are all these billions of destitute people living in squalor going to efficiently contribute to the economy? ~a
[2019-11-21 10:33:46] - paul: "slightly more aware of their consumption habits" i agree it could have big ripple effects 30 years down the line. but in the opposite direction than you think it will. people consuming less *and also* consuming more efficiently, has positive effects on the long term economy. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:31:54] - a: and we're talking about decades in the future. Same idea with the FIRE movement. It may be small now, but if it grows and/or even just influences people to be slightly more aware of their consumption habits, it could have big ripple effects 30 years down the line. -Paul
[2019-11-21 10:30:58] - a: "over-population is a real and major threat" I guess it depends on what you're talking about. I'm not talking about the environmental impact of over-population of the planet. I'm talking about what I thought was the accepted idea that if a country's population shrinks, then it is likely the economy shrinks as well (see Japan). I know we're not at that place yet, but our trend is that direction... -Paul
[2019-11-21 10:26:51] - paul: 4. totally disagree with your conclusion. none of this is secret or revelatory information. so it's all priced in. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:24:56] - paul: 3. the fire movement has what, like 1000 members in the united states? most of them are decades from retirement. so about 100 people per year are going to be selling stocks and (most of them) consuming more than the average citizen. over 150 million americans own stocks or funds. (50% of 330 million is 165 million). drop in the bucket, man! fire movement will be totally lost in the noise unless it gains a *lot* of popularity. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:21:24] - paul: 2. you've always seem fixated with under-population when over-population is a real and major threat. you've got it all backwards. even if population growth was zero (it's not), that would be a good thing for the economy. birth *rates* have slowed slightly, and population *growth* has slowed slightly, but the birth rates is still positive, and population growth is still positive. the real threat is over-population. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:20:31] - paul: to add more to (1) i'm not sure the baby-boomer retirement curve is as stark as you think. and they definitely won't all be retiring at the same time. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:20:07] - paul: somewhat. but most (guessing) of institutional investors are not holding stocks on behalf of individuals. they're holding stocks on behalf of companies. companies don't die at generational boundaries like that. ~a
[2019-11-21 10:19:11] - a: Yeah, but those institutional investors own stocks on behalf of individuals, right? Aren't a lot of those baby boomers? -Paul
[2019-11-21 10:18:06] - paul: 1. of your things, this is probably the only one with technical merit (imo). though i think baby boomers will retire much later than you think (many of them will never retire; even the ones with some pension/retirement in equities). and baby boomers only own ~10% of the s&p500 (80% are owned by institutional investors, and of the 20% left, much of that is non-baby-boomer). buyers and sellers will more or less balance out, imo. ~a
[2019-11-21 09:58:17] - meaning less growth in consumption. (3) Things like the FIRE movement and Marie Kondo's minimalism is growing in popularity, which encourages less consumption and shorter working years (in the case of FIRE). Even less consumption. (4) End result? We could be looking at an overall smaller economy in 30 years along with less demand for stocks. -Paul
[2019-11-21 09:56:11] - So, I have a theoretical bear case for the US stock market over the next 30 years. Wondering what you guys think. (1) Baby boomers are getting ready to retire, which means they are going from buying stocks to selling stocks. (2) US birth rate is already below replacement levels AND immigration is slowing down, meaning population growth is slowing. -Paul
[2019-11-20 15:47:19] - a/Daniel: I'm in agreement here. I don't think this is a good thing. I'm just calling it as I see it. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 15:21:53] - Yeah, in some ways I understand the idea of sticking by your tribe's representative no matter what (even if I think it is stupid), but I remain completely flabbergasted that Trump is like the most "stand-by-your-man" Republican politician of our lifetimes. He's a bad fit in almost every way, from previously being a Democrat, to his political positions to insulting war heroes... -Paul
[2019-11-20 15:15:00] - daniel/xpovos: "Politically, always" yeah, i kinda hate this too. not because of how wrong it is, but about how right it is. i think we're living in an age where this is at the historical maximum. the current president is supported by "christian conservatives" is neither christian nor a conservative. he was donating to D campaigns less than 10 years ago. that's probably never happened in the history of Ds and Rs being presidents. ~a
[2019-11-20 14:24:50] - I probably should have put quotes around those. Oh well. -Daniel
[2019-11-20 14:24:23] - xpovos: So the ends justifies the means? -Paul Politically, always. -Xpovos This was the lesson that I think I learned with the pedo Alabama senate guy. I don't think I realized how stark it is for so many that the ends justify the means when it comes to politics till that guy. If you vote for a pedo just to support your party then thats about as far as the concept can go. -Daniel
[2019-11-20 13:54:04] - Paul: Morally, of course not. Politically, always. Hence my divided nature. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 13:53:31] - 3) My read (important to note here that this is not a mainstream opinion): Very little of Trump's support comes from "Republicans." Most of those who support Trump vote Republican but would identify as "Christian conservative." They'll like Pence just fine, too, but they're not as interested in Pence being a better Republican as you might expect. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 13:53:15] - xpovos: So the ends justifies the means? -Paul
[2019-11-20 13:52:10] - 2b) It's less that he rants about conspiracies against him and more that there's a substantial minority that believes the rants about the conspiracies. E.g. Hilary Clinton ranted about a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get her and her husband. However, largely no one paid any attention to that rant, and when they did it was to mock her. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 13:48:41] - a/Paul: 1) No. I do believe it next to impossible for anything Trump does, or anything the Democrats/media say about Trump to move that needle significantly. It can be moved, but not by those groups. 2) Yes, it's probably a bad precedent. But most of what Lincoln did was bad precedent, and it largely worked out for the Union. cont. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 13:14:44] - paul: yah. (still i doubt it'll happen. even if they end up making the senate vote a "secret vote", which is somehow legal, it probably won't come back with conviction). ~a
[2019-11-20 13:13:09] - mig: i put "everybody" in quotes. but regardless . . . i wasn't serious. obviously not everybody wins. i think no matter what happens, lots of people are going to be pissed. the president allegedly (are we at the point where i can say "unarguably" instead of "allegedly") broke a shit-ton of laws. very few people are getting out of this quagmire happy. ~a
[2019-11-20 12:14:38] - a: I guess the counter is what Miguel is saying about the die-hard Trump voters, but so many Republican politicians are retiring anyway so why not salvage some respectability...? -Paul
[2019-11-20 12:14:05] - a: Your (3) is the thing I don't quite get. I suspect most Republican politicians realize that Trump is dangerous, and if anything Pence should be at least as effective if not more so. So kick Trump out of office and salvage something from this sinking ship by putting Pence in place. -Paul
[2019-11-20 11:55:45] - a: do they? what about trump mania voters? How many of them bail on the GOP if they haul off Trump? Its probably not all of them but probably a significant amount especially if Trump decides to play scorched earth with the GOP. - mig
[2019-11-20 11:46:23] - xpovos: answer paul's question first because his questions are better. but i have a third: (3) convince them with this: pence will be the new president. he's a republican and will be a president that the libs fucking will hate maybe more than trump. and he'll be effective. the voters even voted for him on the trump-pence ticket. "everybody" wins. ~a
[2019-11-20 11:16:05] - a: I think we've been at should for a hella long time but thats just me. -Daniel
[2019-11-20 11:14:01] - Xpovos: I hear you, but (1) do we expect that 35-40% floor to ever go away, or is he right that he could shoot somebody in the middle of Times Square and get away with it? (2) Isn't that a bad precedent to set as well? We can't remove somebody who is unfit because he rants about conspiracies against him? -Paul
[2019-11-20 11:11:49] - paul/xpovos: i learned something today that i didn't know: trump's plan almost worked. zelensky was about to capitulate to trump's demands: zelensky scheduled an interview with cnn for september 13th. he had planned to announce info regarding the "trump investigations". zelensky was up against a giant wall: if trump didn't approve the funding by the end of september, it would vanish. ~a
[2019-11-20 11:08:09] - And given that he has that 35-40% floor in large part because of very specific rhetoric about certain non-democratic things, removing him would simply play into that narrative too much. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 11:07:31] - a: I'm torn, myself. I'm very sympathetic to the arguments for impeachment, but I'm not sure we're at "should" territory. Some of my reasons for hesitation have nothing to do with the facts, though, but with the state of the union. Would impeachment and conviction improve our political situation? I don't think so. Trump has his 35-40% floor, right? How do you convince them? Right now we've not done that. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-20 10:59:08] - a: It seems pretty obvious he put his own re-election (ie, finding dirt on his opponents) over what is best for the country's foreign policy. Maybe if that was in isolation there could be some benefit of the doubt, but I see it more as the straw that broke the already overburdened camel's back. -Paul
[2019-11-20 10:57:50] - a: With the caveat that I really haven't done much research into the topic at all, it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence over the course of his term so far (obviously including the Ukraine stuff) that removal from office is justified. -Paul
[2019-11-20 10:56:55] - yah. ~a
[2019-11-20 10:56:18] - a: Not to mention the crazy stuff going on in Hong Kong with the police surrounding a university and whatnot. -Paul
[2019-11-20 10:55:14] - according to the wikipedias, high crimes and misdemeanors include anything that goes against their oath of office. so, "high" was meant to broaden the set of "crimes", not limit it. trump's party (chair of the senate rules committee, mcconnell) was right when they argued "obstruction of justice" was a high crime in 1999. of course it is. ~a
[2019-11-20 10:46:28] - it's a little weird that we're talking about violence against women and sbc and alm (although they are super important topics) considering what turbulent times the federal government is in this week. so, on that note, i have a question. regardless of whether the senate will vote for removal (they won't), *should* the senate vote for removal? asked differently: did trump commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"? ~a
[2019-11-19 12:25:24] - It's Fox News, CNN and MSNBC's most common verbiage for "Trump is...," with some allowances made for language, for each month for the past few years. There are some expected patterns in there, but some shockers as well. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 12:25:07] - what is it? ~a
[2019-11-19 12:24:13] - I found this interesting. https://assets.realclear.com/files/2019/11/1492_TABLE-Trump.pdf -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 11:12:25] - a: Yeah, I'm actually kinda impressed? I just assumed it would be some sort of "mental pain and anguish" that involved asking for millions, but I guess the worst you can say about this is that he's doing it for publicity, which seems fair. -Paul
[2019-11-19 11:12:16] - paul: maybe blm should sue the police departments for $5? ~a
[2019-11-19 11:11:31] - paul: makes sense i guess? if he doesn't care about punishment, but does want the problem to be fixed? ~a
[2019-11-19 11:08:57] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/burger-king-impossible-burger-lawsuit-trnd/index.html "Williams "suffered monetary damages in the amount that he paid to purchase" the Impossible Whopper, according to the suit." So... he's suing for like $5-10? -Paul
[2019-11-19 10:59:21] - Paul: Sure. There are at least three major problems here and they're all entangled. There's not going to be any one solution. Something like BLM comes from a breaking point of problems from that intersection. They're hyper-focused on one of the problems, and they're right. But not exclusively or completely right. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 10:54:40] - Xpovos: Right, and that could be a sign of a problem with policing, but it also would be a different problem than police shootings. -Paul
[2019-11-19 10:54:03] - Paul: Police are definitely policing minority communities more/more heavily, and therefore they find more crime there. There may even be more crime there. Regardless, minorities make up a larger proportion of police interactions. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 10:51:20] - Xpovos: I wonder how that compares to the general population. Slightly related, but when it comes to police shootings does it make sense to compare to the general population or to the criminal population? -Paul
[2019-11-19 10:50:09] - a: Racial breakdown on the SBC from that same article: 41% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 16% African American. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 10:40:49] - a: Yeah, agreed. I wasn't happy with my wording there. -Paul
[2019-11-19 10:39:42] - paul: "Many are perfectly justified" justified is a continuum. it's not boolean (and almost always up to subjective interpretation). sounds worse than a rabbit hole. ~a
[2019-11-19 10:30:51] - And unfortunately, those often break differently along racial lines, I believe (like suicides and homicides in terms of gun violence). -Paul
[2019-11-19 10:30:23] - Also, if we're going down this rabbit hole, obviously there are a wide range of circumstances that could involve police shootings. Many are perfectly justified circumstances where the officer is under attack or a shooting will help save lives. There are also lots that involve people with mental illness which are hazier. -Paul
[2019-11-19 10:26:05] - xpovos: it's possible statistics treat sbc differently. maybe not though. it would take some digging into the results. but if anything, which way (toward or away from which race) would sbc even skew the results? i'm not sure it changes anything really? ~a
[2019-11-19 10:24:31] - ah suicide by cop. ~a
[2019-11-19 10:24:07] - i also had to google sbc, and didn't find anything. ~a
[2019-11-19 10:04:24] - cite:Mohandie, K., Meloy, J.R. & Collins, P.I. (2009). Suicide by cop among officer involved shooting cases. Journal of Forensic Science, 54(2), 456-462. -- Of 707 police shootings recorded for the study (1998-2006) (includes non-lethal) 36% were categorized as SBC. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 09:59:57] - Xpovos: SBC? Southern Baptist Convention? -Paul
[2019-11-19 09:59:45] - a: It boggles my mind that Trayvon Martin was more of a poster child than Tamir Rice, for example. -Paul
[2019-11-19 09:58:51] - a: In other words, I think it's easier for conservatives and non-liberals to dismiss some of the BLM stuff for various reasons (it also got tied to some socialist movements, I think), but it would've been a lot harder to dismiss if it was focused more on broad police misconduct that everybody could agree on. -Paul
[2019-11-19 09:58:31] - An interesting statistic I heard recently was that 11% of police shootings are SBC. I need to find a proper source on that, because it was second-hand at best when I heard it. -- Xpovos
[2019-11-19 09:57:55] - a: "without blm, would things have been worse or better or the same than they are today?" Oooh, that'a a good question. I think it did a good job of bringing light to a problem, but I think it unfortunately shone a light on too specific an area of it and that helped to make it a partisan issue vs a more widely accepted one. -Paul
[2019-11-19 09:44:54] - paul: yeah, ok, i mostly agree with that. but historically, nothing was being done. blm became a thing, and a light was shown on a thing that was being totally ignored. without blm, would things have been worse or better or the same than they are today? i'm not sure, who knows. but i agree with both of you, that alm and blm are probably not helping (anymore). imo, asking for a "violence against men act" doesn't help either.
~a[2019-11-19 09:31:28] - Ah, something I forgot to bring up yesterday if we're going forward with BLM vs ALM is that it CAN be counter productive too. If we approach police shootings as a problem of racism instead of a problem of escalation or training or whatever else, we could be pretty ineffective at attempts to fix things. -Paul
[2019-11-19 08:33:45] - mig: i agree it's unproductive, and i agree it's a side show (somewhat). regardless, do you have any ideas for reform? ~a
[2019-11-18 17:45:11] - personally I feel blm vs alm to be a very unproductive side show. Police kill way too many people unnecessarily regardless of the color of their skin and are hardly ever head accountable. Generally through these spats I rarely hear any sort of policy proposals or ideas for reform, which is a shame. - mig
[2019-11-18 17:30:14] - mig: now there's a question. i dunno! within a standard deviation? ~a
[2019-11-18 17:29:15] - a: what % of shootings would be considered "proportionate"? - mig
[2019-11-18 16:49:40] - "doesn't that mean I shouldn't be able to make the case?" i guess. it depends on the context. in the context of the message board, sure. in absolutely every context? no. depending on who your family members are they might not want to talk about it over thanksgiving dinner. ~a
[2019-11-18 16:46:25] - a: I guess I'll push back against the "only if it's true" part because obviously everybody thinks they know the truth and if we agreed on the truth then there would be nothing to talk about. Who gets to determine the truth? -Paul
[2019-11-18 16:45:41] - a: "only if it's true" I haven't looked at your data yes, but assuming it shows evidence that you believe shows that it's not true, doesn't that mean I shouldn't be able to make the case? -Paul
[2019-11-18 16:43:21] - "I should be able to make the case" i think you should be able to make the case, only if it's true. us us uk ~a
[2019-11-18 16:35:41] - a: I should be able to make the case that police violence against blacks isn't uniquely worse than police violence against other races or that violence against women doesn't need special protections without getting shouted down as an insincere troll (again, not you guys). -Paul
[2019-11-18 16:34:40] - a: I get your point about BLM, and even though I think it's a bad idea, I accept that others disagree and I usually don't make a big deal about it. My point is that I (and others who think like me) should be afforded the same courtesy (not directed at you, but directed at everybody). -Paul
[2019-11-18 16:32:00] - a: Sorry, got distracted watching my shares of ABMD plummet (and, you know, doing work). -Paul
[2019-11-18 14:12:43] - paul: no, (i'm completely serious) i don't think you're attempting to mock anything. but, whether i think "all lives matter" is offensive is irrelevant. the (more) important part is that "black lives" are dis-proportionally targeted and "black lives" are rife with inequality. calling the movement "blm" might be dumb because it creates unnecessary vitriol. but, it is true that solving violence against black lives needs to be addressed. ~a
[2019-11-18 14:06:19] - a: Right, but that goes back to the whole benefit of the doubt thing. Do you think Richard Sherman and Hillary Clinton were trying to mock or deride black lives matter? Do you think I would be if I used the term "all lives matter"? -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:57:13] - the devil's threesome. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:56:28] - "latter is somehow offensive" yes, it's offensive (imo) because it's meant to mock/deride a viewpoint. the dis-proportionally targeted "tribe" *and* the "tribe" rife with inequality is being mocked. they get the shitty ends of both sticks, then their viewpoint is being mocked. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:54:22] - a: Again, it kinda comes down to the benefit of the doubt. I try to assume the best of people and that BLM doesn't ONLY care about black lives (even as many supporters seem to be against the term "All Lives Matter"), but I wish the other side (specifically me) was given the same courtesy and the worst possible interpretation wasn't always assumed. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:52:54] - a: Sure. I don't necessarily agree, but that seems like a reasonable line of thought. Personally, though, I think it's a lot MORE suspicious to say "I'm against rape of women" than to say "I'm against rape of anybody", and yet we seem to be in bizarro world where the latter is somehow offensive and the former is perfectly acceptable. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:50:20] - "why specifically label disproportionately targeted?" why not? "is it useful to say 'rape of women' is bad or 'white male mass shooters' are bad or 'cops shooting blacks' is bad?" yes it is useful. why? because in some or all of those situations, solutions can be fine-tuned to the specific threat. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:34:58] - a: And why specifically label disproportionately targeted? Again, is it useful to say "rape of women" is bad or "white male mass shooters" are bad or "cops shooting blacks" is bad? All of those are bad regardless of who it is perpetrated against. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:34:43] - meh, nm. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:33:39] - a: What lacks substance? -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:24:40] - "expanding your concerns to include everybody and not just your preferred tribe?" "your preferred", why would you say preferred? change "your preferred" to "the dis-proportionally targeted". (i'm not getting mad or labeling you a troll, so i'll remove that part). i'd argue against expanding concerns to include everybody and not just the dis-proportionally targeted tribe. because it's an addition that lacks usefulness? ~a
[2019-11-18 13:24:04] - but to be honest, i do think your argument is lacking . . . substance. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:23:38] - well i'm glad we could help out. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:23:24] - a: Because instead of all of this, it basically got shut down after two posts. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:23:01] - a: This discussion is precisely what I was looking for and is why I was so frustrated by my experiences on FB. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:22:31] - a: No, I know, I'm referring to the FB discussion (which is what I thought this was still based off of). Sorry, you're absolutely right on that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was 100% directed at others. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:21:39] - a: But does it matter if some group is over represented if the underlying action is bad? Why say "rape against women" is bad if, uh, all rape is bad? -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:20:27] - nobody here called you a troll, so back off on that one. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:19:59] - Same thing with violence against women act (bringing us back to the original topic). Sure, be sexist and only address it for women. I'm not going to say that's an offensive idea (even if I do kinda think it is) and try to shut down your support of it . But where do you get off calling me a troll and saying I'm arguing in bad faith for suggesting that it apply to men too? -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:18:27] - "victims of police misconduct and problems in the criminal justice system isn't restricted to a single race". who was saying that it wasn't? i think blm would suggest one race is dis-proportionally represented. "attacks against Christian immigrants is bad" for the analogy to be complete, you'd need to see to see a clearly dis-proportional representation of christian immigrants in the attacks. i don't think that's the case. ~a
[2019-11-18 13:17:57] - But whatever, like I said, I'm fine with that. Go ahead and strangely limit your appeal and only address a certain subset of the problem. But please don't get mad at me and label me a troll for.... expanding your concerns to include everybody and not just your preferred tribe? -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:14:30] - It just seems silly to me to restrict concerns about police misconduct to a single race. It's like saying "attacks against Christian immigrants is bad". Yes... but why do you specify that group and leave out muslim immigrants and others? -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:12:07] - https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/the-truth-behind-racial-disparities-in-fatal-police-shootings/ “We found that the race of the officer doesn’t matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot. If anything, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police." -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:09:14] - a: And goes beyond simply "racism". It is a problem that touches on all people. Furthermore, simply from a practicality standpoint you're more likely to get support for reforms by showing how the problem affects everybody and not just a single group. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:07:54] - a: Well, I reject the idea that Black Lives Matter wants equality, but I also don't think there's an "All Lives Matter" movement. I think it depends on context. For me, in the context I am most likely to use it, it would be to say that victims of police misconduct and problems in the criminal justice system isn't restricted to a single race... -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:05:47] - Paul: I agree but also think that people are lazy and everyone makes assumptions. If you start your sentence with those three words and expect people to hear you out you are doing a poor job of communicating your position. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 13:05:22] - Daniel: Right, and lots of people have interpreted "Black Lives Matter" as dismissive of police lives. It goes both ways.... or should. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:04:58] - paul: can you give the definition of "alm"? "blm" wants equality. so . . . what exactly does "alm" want? also equality? ~a
[2019-11-18 13:04:05] - Daniel: It's one thing if you listen to somebody's position and decide you disagree and that's that. It's another thing to completely dismiss somebody for disagreeing with you without hearing them out. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:03:44] - Paul: I mean the first sentence of the wiki article illustrates the problem I'm saying... the concept of all lives mattering isn't bad. Its the larger context of it. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 13:03:28] - Daniel: It should be the context that matters, not just the fact that somebody says three words that by themselves shouldn't be offensive. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:02:13] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter Has it been used to dismiss things? Maybe. But "All Lives Matter" has been said by people like Richard Sherman and Hillary Clinton. I don't think All Lives Matter is any more dismissive than Black Lives Matter. -Paul
[2019-11-18 13:01:30] - Paul: I think its key that the concept of all lives mattering != the "All Lives Matter" movement. In my head the "All Lives Matter" 'movement' as much as there is such a thing is generall a pro police pro status quo movement. So its not the concept of all lives mattering that is being rejected but the "All Lives Matter" movement. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:59:57] - a: And if you choose to in any way support one of those lower tier positions, you're clearly evil or trolling or white supremacist or racist or something bad. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:59:23] - a: Okay.... and I guess you don't have an alternative answer for why they aren't on even grounds? Because I think that gets at the crux of my annoyance. It feels like there is some invisible hierarchy of which movements/issues/positions are acceptable and which aren't, with no clear logic on what that hierarchy is. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:58:56] - but also you should probably find a different first three words just in order to communicate better and avoid being lumped in with others who are arguing something different. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:58:24] - Paul: My point on the lives matter is that it seems that most people who say all lives matter are in some way defending the status quo and given that the point of BLM is trying to point out that the status quo isn't good for black people. If you are trying to say all lives matter including black lives and we should try to stop police violence and support police reform then you are probably being shut down prematurely. -Daniel
[2019-11-18 12:57:41] - paul: nm. my argument was dumb. i shouldn't have been arguing what i was arguing. what i should be saying is that "blm" and "alm" are not on even grounds (and that's the end of what i should have been arguing). ~a
[2019-11-18 12:53:44] - a: I know that's probably not what you're trying to say, but I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying. -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:53:23] - a: I'm not sure that ties directly to the balance of the movement, though. I'm also a little confused by the point your're trying to make. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that movements directed at underrepresented groups should be immune to criticism somehow? -Paul
[2019-11-18 12:49:48] - paul: black lives are underrepresented in the set of S&P execs, and federal, state, and local governments (and other groups of decision makers). they generally have fewer resources to devote to solve inequality. ~a
prev <-> next