prev <-> next
[2020-02-28 11:28:30] - paul: it's because mark and dewey were there blocking out our boring conversation topics. bitcoin and coffee? boring. let's talk about beer and sports! anyways . . . i'm here now, we can at least talk about bitcoin. message me on signal if you want to talk. or hangouts or something. ~a
[2020-02-28 11:28:28] - paul: it *is* significant! it's so significant, i'm changing my opinions and arguments and shit. you shuold'a used that data on matt or daniel or whoever. ~a
[2020-02-28 10:33:38] - Paul: No Kloubacher? -Daniel
[2020-02-28 10:13:21] - Xpovos: For me, it's about voting for the candidate who I think is best (somebody who probably has a <1% chance of winning the nomination) or, I guess, voting for the least bad option among Biden/Bernie/Bloomberg (I assume those are the front-runners to choose from) even though I think they're all pretty bad. -Paul
[2020-02-28 10:09:41] - Xpovos: "Do you want to help elect the guy that is least electable." No, I haven't fully thought through things yet, but I'm pretty sure that I ultimately would prefer most of the Democratic candidates to Trump (note, this doesn't mean I intend to vote for them). I'm not interested in trying to game the first past the post system to try to help one of the lesser of two evils. -Paul
[2020-02-28 10:07:40] - Paul: there's two ways to cast a "spoiler" vote. Do you want to help elect the guy that is least electable. This is the "Republican" way of spoiling. Or do you want to try to help the "least bad" candidate. That's what I normally do. And for openness, what I did when I voted a few days ago. Since I'm an EO, I have to absentee. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-28 09:26:31] - I'm looking for feedback on how people think I should vote in the Virginia presidential primary. The Republicans canceled theirs, so it's either vote in the Democratic one or not at all. Since I would be basically voting for the best among a bunch of bad options, should I go with the least bad (even though they have almost zero chance of winning) or for the "lesser of two evils" if you will? -Paul
[2020-02-28 09:18:50] - a: btw, I can't believe I completely forgot to talk about buying bitcoin AND talking to Audrey last night. -Paul
[2020-02-28 09:18:32] - a: Ah, cool. I tried looking for the number of miles and couldn't find it. I figured they might be approaching a large enough number of miles to be significant. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:57:45] - paul: "It's hard to say for Tesla, who has had casualties, because we have no idea what amount of miles they have driven" actually we do know. and it's an impressive number: well over 2billion? with only 5 fatalities. that's compelling imo. (0.25 / 100k miles). that's 4 times better than humans? though i'm not sure how accurate my summary is. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:56:51] - true. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:56:42] - a: Right, but the people actually doing the work on self driving cars are probably keen on learning from it, no? -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:48:57] - paul: a lot of people who propose we move to self-driving don't know about or discuss the herzberg case. many people (like on facebook and shit) like to think that self-driving is all sunshine and farts. some of us are not learning from it. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:46:26] - a: Sure, but is there any question whether we should learn from it? -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:45:22] - "one Uber death isn't enough". obviously i agree, but i'd like to learn from the uber death: there was nothing obstructing the view, it was on an open highway, there was plenty of time to react, the pedestrian was slow, there was no reason the fucking driver should be watching the FUCKING tv. but that was telling as well: if the goddamn professional tester can't stay of her g/d phone, neither will the teenager, nor the alcoholic. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:43:04] - a: I look at it like this: I want the government to sit back and let Tesla and Waymo push their tests forward unless there's a compelling case that they're causing a lot of problems. One Uber death isn't enough. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:42:25] - i'm also (imo) not as much of an optimist as you or xpovos. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:42:01] - i think we mostly agree. i'm more of a moderate here though. i *would* prefer a large rollout, but not at the expense of thousands or millions of lives. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:41:25] - a: And we obviously can't close this world and run a test either. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:40:50] - i understand. you want to decrease long term deaths at the expense of short term deaths. the problem is you can't predict the future. and nobody seems to be able to do that. therefore you can't move too fast and break too many things. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:39:26] - a: Maybe? For example, what if in the first year of full deployment auto fatalities go up 50% BUT we also improve the self driving algorithms by.... I dunno.... 50%? Obviously that number is kinda made up, but the point is it will improve faster than a more limited roll-out. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:37:59] - agreed. probably. (assuming, of course, that we back off in the case that they suck). ~a
[2020-02-27 15:31:39] - a: Cool, because I'm kinda in the "move fast and break things" mentality. I suspect (based on little to no data) that if we took our world and a clone of it and in one did a full Waymo deployment for all cars and in another rolled it out very slowly until it was proven safe, that more lives would be saved long term in the fast rollout. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:30:45] - (until/unless it becomes obvious that they suck) ~a
[2020-02-27 15:30:15] - i would. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:29:58] - a: Okay, my bad. I thought you were with Daniel (was it Daniel? Maybe it was Matt on Facebook. my memory is going, as you know) and wanted them largely off the road until proven to be safe. So you would be okay with a larger deployment of autonomous vehicles? -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:27:25] - "Am I wrong about that?" yes. i never said i don't want them on the street. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:26:57] - paul: "per mile traveled, fatal crash rates increase beginning at age 75 and rise sharply after age 80. this is mainly due to increased risk of injury and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes." fuck, that'll complicate the numbers some. did they die because they're old and got hurt? or did they die because the got in a bad accident? ~a
[2020-02-27 15:26:56] - a: Sure, but I feel like IN SOME WAYS (I capitalize to stress that only in some ways) you are trying to have it both ways. You want them to have a lot more miles, but also don't want them on the street until they have more miles to be proven safe. Am I wrong about that? -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:24:12] - "it's literally impossible for them to have performed any better in terms of casualties per mile driven than they have done already" while that's completely true, it misses the point. the point is: they need more miles. (for example, if they had driven 1k miles, and had zero fatalities, i similarly would not let you claim success). ~a
[2020-02-27 15:13:33] - a: And honestly? I'll bet you could make a compelling case for self driving already being safer than certain cohorts like the elderly or maybe first year drivers. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:12:34] - a: Either way, conceding that there isn't enough data to prove anything, if I had to use an adjective to describe the difference between 0 deaths in 20 million miles vs 1 death in 100 million miles, I would say "close" is a good one. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:11:22] - a: It's hard to say for Tesla, who has had casualties, because we have no idea what amount of miles they have driven. I don't know about Uber. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:10:45] - a: I agree 20 million miles isn't enough to "prove" anything, but assuming Waymo has no causalities so far, then it's literally impossible for them to have performed any better in terms of casualties per mile driven than they have done already. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:08:54] - a: "you can say false things? is that your point?" -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:08:41] - paul: what was my summary of your position? ~a
[2020-02-27 15:08:22] - a: "what a horrible summary of my position" Now you know how I feel.
-Paul[2020-02-27 15:07:51] - paul: i said they needed much more than 100m of driving under their belt with at or below 1 death per 100m miles. i picked a number of 500m miles. i never said 0 deaths. i even literally said "like 5 deaths". ~a
[2020-02-27 15:05:32] - "that autonomous cars have to never have any deaths" what a horrible summary of my position. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:05:29] - a: 0 < 1 -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:05:14] - a: If you're measuring stick is that autonomous cars have to never have any deaths, then I suppose you're right. They will always be worse. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:04:59] - "they average 0 deaths per million miles which is better than human driving" like, no, you can't say that. no statistician would approve that headline. ~a
[2020-02-27 15:04:42] - a: No, but you are averaging zero deaths. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:04:22] - paul: i'm invincible because i haven't died yet? ~a
[2020-02-27 15:04:04] - a: What's false about what I said? -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:03:50] - a: I agree it's too small a sample to prove anything, but I also don't think it's just immediately dismissable. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:03:46] - paul: you can say false things? is that your point? ~a
[2020-02-27 15:03:28] - a: I mean, statistics work all sorts of ways. You can also say they average 0 deaths per million miles which is better than human driving. -Paul
[2020-02-27 15:01:48] - paul: "so they're 1/5th of the way there with no fatalities yet" they're not 1/5th of the way. that's not how statistics work: you could have gotten lucky. i'm not a statistician, so i don't know how many miles they have to drive, but i'm sure it's not 100m. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:59:40] - xpovos: "I have a very dim view of human driver safety" i do as well. especially when human drivers get near pedestrians. i just also have a dim view of self driver safety. it'll get there, i just don't think it'll be right away? ~a
[2020-02-27 14:59:14] - a: Okay, so they're 1/5th of the way there with no fatalities yet. That seems relevant and not "disgustingly small". -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:58:46] - and if waymo drives 100m miles, that's probably not enough. they might have just gotten lucky. after 500m miles, though, if they have like 5 deaths, that's probably a little bit better of a measure. what's where i got the 25x. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:58:25] - a: I have a very dim view of human driver safety. Even in the cases where they have (x1000) miles driven without an incident, they have ridiculously high rates of near misses. I can watch 3-4 per night on my daily commute. Near misses may not be fatalities, but they mess with the system as well, and that has unintended consequences. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-27 14:57:31] - "20 million miles seems like a lot" it's not. humans do ~1 death / 100 million miles. link. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:56:10] - a: https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/06/waymos-autonomous-cars-have-driven-20-million-miles-on-public-roads/ Are you sure about that? 20 million miles seems like a lot. Are humans really better drivers to where there are less accidents (or are we talking fatalities?) over 20 million miles? -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:54:46] - paul: "Waymo's car have an unblemished record" irrelevant: they've driven a disgustingly small number of miles. they have to do like 25x their current distance (with less than ~5 deaths) before we could say they're at what humans can do. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:50:31] - a: I mean, doesn't Waymo's car have an unblemished record (all accidents involving it were due to human error by other drivers)? -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:50:27] - "he's prone to exaggeration" exactly my thought. "it probably means by now that we're getting close". i would not come to that conclusion. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:49:26] - a: Now, he's prone to exaggeration, so I don't necessarily buy that statement, but I figure it probably means by now that we're getting close. -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:48:56] - a: Sure, and human drivers kill pedestrians with no adverse conditions too. Like you say, it's a matter of at what rate. I haven't seen any solid data indicating which is safer now, but I do remember Elon Musk saying a year or two ago that he thought autonomous cars were already safer than human drivers. -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:47:21] - paul: it might be a one-off, but the uber pedestrian fatality in 2018 had no adverse conditions. it was a highway, a straight road, with the pedestrian in full view for a shit-ton of time. i haven't seen published how many miles uber drove before they had one death, but i'm guessing it was a small number. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:43:32] - a: And while I agree that some people will always want to drive their own cars, I think eventually the majority will transition. -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:43:11] - i do agree that drivers are just the worst. and they're getting worst...er. texting while driving is disturbing trend. i think a shorter term solution, though, is strict enforcement. the number of people i see pulled over for doing stupid shit seems (imo) to have decreased. ~a
[2020-02-27 14:43:03] - a: I know we already have a bet on this, but I think self driving cars will be better than humans sooner than 20 years. Obviously "better" is subjective, though. I think they could easily be safer very soon (if not already safer), but that could be because they'll just shut down during adverse conditions that they aren't prepared for like dirt roads or whatever. -Paul
[2020-02-27 14:28:44] - xpovos: ai driving cars aren't better than humans yet. i'm doubtful this will change in the next 20 years. also americans won't (ever?) relinquish their right to drive cars. we can't even get rid of the penny: what makes you think we'll ever get rid of our steering wheels? (i think you might be too optimistic about self driving?) ~a
[2020-02-27 13:45:16] - a: This reaffirms, for me, my desire to get AI driving all (most?) cars ASAP. AIs aren't perfect, but they're never watching Netflix when they're supposed to be driving. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-27 13:18:47] - not surprising ~a
[2020-02-27 12:18:57] - paul: i don't know the answer to your question (i'd want the data to define their parameters specifically since every jurisdiction is different in how they treat bicycles). just know that it won't change the outcome greatly: if the numbers are going up, counting bicycles or not counting bicycles won't change that. bicycle fatalities are always just noise when looking at pedestrian fatality trends. ~a
[2020-02-27 12:14:03] - paul: "transitioning any of your individual stocks to 'safer' companies...or...you'll just be transitioning index funds to bonds or something". the latter, mostly. i already have a healthy percentage of index funds (67%) and bonds (19%). the bond percentage will definitely be increasing with time, and they'll mostly be coming from index funds: however, i'm strictly "balancing" so it'll depend on the performance of various assets. ~a
[2020-02-27 10:56:02] - paul: i still sell, yah. i accept usd only, sorry. maybe literal gold? you can probably find an exchange online (caveat emptor) ~a
[2020-02-27 10:15:45] - a: Do cyclists count as "pedestrians" for this kind of statistical work? https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-american-pedestrians-are-dying-than-in-past-30-years-11582779660 -- Xpovos
[2020-02-27 09:29:18] - a: Oh, when you get close to retirement, do you plan on transitioning any of your individual stocks to "safer" companies? Or will those always be considered your "riskier" assets and you'll just be transitioning index funds to bonds or something? -Paul
[2020-02-27 09:28:12] - a: Might have to buy some more btc if this continues. Do you still sell? Do you accept bitcoin cash or bitcoin gold as payment?
-Paul[2020-02-27 09:22:00] - yep. ~a
[2020-02-27 09:20:07] - a: See you online tonight for SC2? -Paul
[2020-02-26 09:57:45] - Xpovos: I agree the faithless elector thing is interesting and I was surprised I don't remember hearing more about it. It's interesting that there were actually more Clinton faithless electors than for Trump (despite all the calls for Trump electors to switch) and how many went to Bernie. Ron Paul got a vote.... and so did Tulsi Gabbard. -Paul
[2020-02-26 09:56:22] - Xpovos: It was a poor showing considering the hopes and where he was polling earlier in the election season... -Paul
[2020-02-25 15:06:25] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 15:06:02] - I also hadn't heard about the six faithless electors. That makes sense given the election, but I'm surprised it wasn't news. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 15:03:28] - 2% seems a good number for O/U. I'd be a lot happier with a straight comp. I really don't think the Lib nominee pulls 3.3%, but that's obviously a much weaker statement than 2%.
[2020-02-25 15:02:45] - Huh. I'll be honest in admitting that I'm stunned Johnson did that well. I remember him doing poorly. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 14:48:25] - Xpovos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Results Popular vote? I might be tempted by that bet. Also, did Colin Powell really get 3 electoral votes last election? -Paul
[2020-02-25 14:45:41] - Particularly given who the likely LP nominees are. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 14:45:23] - Paul: I'd put money on a 2% ceiling. I mean I can hope, but it doesn't seem likely. People are just much happier staying at home and not voting than voting for a third party. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 14:15:56] - Xpovos: I guess we'll see. I don't have a ton of faith in polls at this point. I think there's a lot of moderates who are going to be turned off by Bernie and Trump if they're the nominees. Maybe another record showing for the LP? -Paul
[2020-02-25 14:10:12] - It could be eight years of President Trump. As terrifying as that may be, even if you’re in favor of his policies." -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 14:09:42] - https://rampantdiscourse.com/significant-2017-super-bowl-ads/ I'm going to quote myself from this RD article from 2017. "https://youtu.be/BH2bCJ5xm9I “It’s a 10 Hair Care†“America, we’re in for at least four years of awful hair…†They said it. {...} People are convinced that Trump is a four-year president, if he even makes it that far. How long until he’s impeached, we’re wondering? Well, what if we’re wrong? It could be eig
[2020-02-25 14:06:25] - I think that's why we've seen so many late entrants (Duval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg) as well as such a large field, and so many people staying in despite low numbers. No one feels good about everyone else's chances at beating Trump. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 14:04:56] - These are national polls, so they skew differently, and ultimately very differently than the electoral college will swing. Even if Bernie pulls +4.4% over Trump in the general (that is, this poll doesn't deteriorate at all during the campaign, which is definitely going to happen), he could still lose the EC while winning the popular vote. Again. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 14:03:38] - Here's the RCP average spread for each remaining D (except Steyer). Bernie (+4.4), Biden (+4.3), Bloomberg (+3.3), Buttieggeg (+1.8), Warren (+1.8). Some interesting facts, real quick. Warren and Sanders are the only ones who don't lose to Trump in at least one poll (usually Emerson). Warren wasn't polled heads-up by Emerson. Bernie won. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:59:53] - The biggest problem with the "anyone but Trump" mindset is that, so far, no one has been able to beat him (no Republican, no Democrat). And I genuinely don't think many, if any, of the D's still running can either. Here's an interesting page of polls. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:40:27] - Paul: I've said it before. Bernie beats Trump in 2016. I'm not as convinced in 2020, but it's not as weak a play as some think. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:30:31] - Xpovos: Will they all come together to beat Trump in the end? Maybe. But I find it shocking that so far the majority seems to be saying that they prioritize electability AND are also going for the socialist.... -Paul
[2020-02-25 13:29:40] - Xpovos: The moderate was horrified about the idea of Bernie (not as horrified as the idea of Trump winning again, but still pretty alarmed), for some of the reasons that candidates have expressed (wanted to keep their insurance, didn't like that he called himself a socialist, etc). -Paul
[2020-02-25 13:28:37] - Xpovos: I think the moderate vs progressive wing divide is very real. Interestingly, I was at an event recently where two pretty liberal people were arguing over which nominee they wanted. One was full-on for Bernie and thought anybody else (except Warren) was basically just a pale imitation of a liberal.... -Paul
[2020-02-25 13:26:48] - Paul: Then, maybe now is too little too late as well. If it is a valid comparison. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:26:20] - In short, the media narrative of moderate wing vs. progressive wing might make sense, but it's only a narrative, not reality, and it's a media device for telling the story in a way we can understand. A way biased by the media itself. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:25:37] - Xpovos: I'm not sure I follow. You think the Bernie comparison to Trump is a bad one? I agree that the Republicans did kinda try to stop Trump, but I think it was too little too late. -Paul
[2020-02-25 13:25:21] - That hypothetical voter is actually quite common based on some polling I've seen and find trustworthy. Voters are very interested in electability. It's why they don't vote for Amy Klobuchar despite liking her and her policies. There's some intrinsic belief among people that she can't beat Trump, or can't garner enough support/enthusiasm from other Democrats. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:24:05] - Paul: That Trump comparison has been made, but I don't buy it. The Republicans did largely drop out to do anything they could to stop Trump, and it didn't work. There's a real chance that would be the same for the Democrats. Hypothetical Dem voter has Biden as his #1 and Bernie as his #2. Biden dropping out helps Bernie, and doesn't hinder him. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 13:00:18] - a: I guess that seems reasonable, but I can't help but wonder if this kind of thing could be avoided by (A) ranked choice voting and (B) having it all happen at once so candidates don't drop out during the course of it. After all, poor South Carolina never got to even vote for Yang while he was still running. -Paul
[2020-02-25 12:50:27] - paul: from wikipedia "The staggered nature of the presidential primary season allows candidates to concentrate their resources in each area of the country one at a time instead of campaigning in every state simultaneously. In some of the less populous states, this allows campaigning to take place on a much more personal scale". ~a
[2020-02-25 12:14:49] - Daniel: Yeah, that seems frighteningly possible. Does anybody know why the primaries are staggered like they are instead of all happening at once? -Paul
[2020-02-25 12:03:15] - I think Bernie has the same path to the nomination that Trump had last time around. If the other candidates stay in he can win. If its Bernie vs 1 other I think Bernie loses. So it will be interesting with the history of Trump to see if the other D candidates drop earlier. -Daniel
[2020-02-25 11:55:21] - Xpovos: There's apparently another debate tonight (third in February!?) in South Carolina. This seems like an important one for the moderates (Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar). Support needs to coalesce behind one of them soon to stop the rise of Bernie. If Biden can make his case to be that guy, maybe he can win. I don't know if he can. -Paul
[2020-02-25 11:51:45] - Paul: Right now, all of Biden's hopes rest in South Carolina. He needs to win there. I think he will. But if Bernie takes it (better than 30% chance, IMO) then it's all over for Biden. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 11:50:48] - Yay, work is no longer blocking the message board. -- Xpovos
[2020-02-25 11:30:29] - xpovos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/11/joe-bidens-track-record-lousy-primary-finishes-just-got-bit-longer/ I read somewhere on twitter that Biden had run for president 3 times and never once had he finished higher than 5th in a state primary. I guess that wasn't quite accurate, but it's still a bad record. -Paul
[2020-02-25 11:28:26] - xpovos: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-speech-senate-south-carolina-democratic-primary-video-election-2020-a9356366.html?amp=1 I've been wrong about many things this democratic primary, but I've also been consistent that Joe Biden would eventually fall apart, and it looks like that is finally happening. -Paul
[2020-02-25 09:24:27] - a: No idea, unfortunately. -Paul
[2020-02-24 18:14:05] - yeah, i think we probably agree on this one. otoh, i wonder if she was being a nuisance. like, what's the other side of the story? ~a
[2020-02-24 15:35:45] - https://reason.com/2020/02/24/judge-rules-businesswoman-must-remove-dresses-from-her-home/ My hometown: Springfield, VA. -Paul
[2020-02-24 12:18:18] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/24/coronavirus-fears-could-push-mortgage-rates-past-4-year-low.html CNBC and I are on the same page. -Paul
[2020-02-24 11:35:26] - a: Oh, I know. My portfolio is still up a ridiculous 16% for the year (ie, two months). Still think it counts as a drop. -Paul
[2020-02-24 11:34:04] - paul: this is hardly a market drop. look at the 5 year graph
~a[2020-02-24 10:30:55] - a: Hey, you think if this market drop keeps up we can get negative interest rates? That would make my mortgage decision a LOT easier. -Paul
[2020-02-24 10:30:33] - a: Hard to say since I've never met the guy. He seems nice enough, though. -Paul
[2020-02-24 10:29:24] - so the latter. ~a
[2020-02-24 10:29:00] - jesus loves everyone, duh. ~a
[2020-02-24 10:27:06] - a: Does that mean he loves me or I love him? -Paul
[2020-02-24 10:26:49] - you're a millionaire when you have the love of jesus christ in your heart. do you have that? ~a
[2020-02-24 10:15:00] - I saw an article about somebody talking about becoming a millionaire and it was unclear to me what exactly went into his calculation. I think equity in a home is fair game, as is retirement accounts, but if you are married do you count your spouse's? Do you have to split the money in a joint checking account in half? Or just figure you need 2 million for the both of you? -Paul
[2020-02-24 10:13:51] - Don't read too much into this question (it's not based on me, but on an article I read about somebody else): If you are married, then how would you calculate when "you" have become a millionaire? -Paul
[2020-02-24 10:07:12] - a: Cool. I'll send an email out. -Paul
[2020-02-24 10:06:30] - yah. ~a
[2020-02-24 09:39:23] - a: Can you still do SC2 this Thursday? -Paul
[2020-02-22 13:26:22] - aaron: i won't see you today, i'm on work travel.
i was able to build and run though! looks pretty sweet. i'll have a pull request for simple stuff (instructions mostly) later today. ~a[2020-02-21 18:57:15] - but i have a crappy tiny half-arrow-key thing going on with my laptop, so it's playable but a little tight - aaron
[2020-02-21 18:56:15] - a: https://github.com/Poobslag/turbofat/ here's the prototype i've started! you might see if you can build it with godot on linux or whatever. i got it running on my windows laptop if you want to play it tomorrow - aaron
[2020-02-21 18:19:23] - mortgage . . . is a compromise? you're saying that bonds are more extreme than paying down your mortgage? i guess that might be true. but if that's the case, i'd just pay down your mortgage the normal way instead of this heloc stuff. ~a
[2020-02-21 16:05:30] - a: Yeah, I totally get that, and you know I'm a huge proponent of investing in the market, but I guess I'm warming up to the idea of trying to pay down some of the mortgage as something of a compromise between shifting some of my portfolio to bonds? -Paul
[2020-02-21 15:03:34] - with interest rates this low, it seems like a weird thing to optimize . . . i'd prefer to put that money into a bond/stock mix. you can't withdraw money from your mortgage . . . ~a
[2020-02-21 13:33:05] - Daniel: Yup, of course. I just wish we had the money to pay down enough principle so we could refinance to a 15 year mortgage and get: (A) a lower rate (B) a sooner payoff date and (C) similar monthly payments. -Paul
[2020-02-21 13:00:11] - You could also compare to just paying extra on your mortage regularly. -Daniel
[2020-02-21 12:59:14] - *I just made up the 250 number as a random estimate. I didn't do any math there* -Daniel
[2020-02-21 12:58:40] - Paul: Depends on definition of "make sense". If you take the size of your HELOC and figure out the interest you save with the 3.2 vs the 4.25 and compare to the hassle of setting up a HELOC and managing that and its worth it then sure. If its saving you 250 bucks over the course of a year up to you to say if it makes sense or not. -Daniel
[2020-02-21 12:52:47] - aDaniel: I definitely agree it's not a magic solution. But in the case I outlined (where I can get a HELOC for like 3.2% vs the 4.25% for my mortgage), wouldn't it in theory make sense to take out a HELOC for those 12 months with the introductory rate as long as I am reasonably sure I can pay it back by the end of 12 months? -Paul
[2020-02-21 12:02:24] - (366/365)^365 > (13/12)^12. ~a
[2020-02-21 11:59:04] - using a daily rate instead of a monthly rate is actually worse for you, not better. ~a
[2020-02-21 11:58:07] - it especially doesn't work if the rate is the same or higher, and with a variable rate that can happen. ~a
[2020-02-21 11:51:16] - If you want to put extra money towards the mortgage then just do it. I think you have to check with your lender on the process but you should be able to make extra principal payments. -Daniel
[2020-02-21 11:50:15] - Paul: I was trying to find it - I made a spreadsheet somewhere when my coworker was espousing this idea. The math didn't bear it out. You are just moving the debt from pile A to pile B. The moment you pay 10k (or whatever the HELOC is for) against the mortgage you now owe 10k more in the HELOC. If you are able to get a better interest rate on the HELOC then sure but I don't think this is a magical solution or anything. -Daniel
[2020-02-21 10:21:03] - I guess it just seems like considering we have (A) decent equity in our house and (B) a decent cash cushion to play with and (C) decent cash flow and (D) a really great credit score, that there has to be something we can take advantage of to deal with some of this mortgage debt. -Paul
[2020-02-21 10:19:45] - Interestingly enough, it looks like I can get a HELOC with an introductory rate (first 12 months) that is significantly lower than my mortgage rate (like, a whole percentage point lower), so I'm wondering if I should test drive this for 12 months.... -Paul
[2020-02-21 10:19:00] - And I think the reason it might even work for rates slightly higher than your mortgage rate is because of that discrepancy between the interest being calculated daily vs monthly. If you are direct depositing money into the HELOC, then hopefully that interest on average is a little lower over the course of the month since it is getting paid down. -Paul
[2020-02-21 10:17:43] - I think this is for people who don't have $10k sitting around. It lets them make that additional $10k payment right now instead of waiting... I guess 10 months in the future, to do it. -Paul
[2020-02-21 10:14:22] - https://bankorganizer.com/banking/velocity-banking/ This might do the best job of explaining what I was talking about yesterday (apparently it is also called velocity banking), and I think I understand the "advantage" of using a HELOC vs just making additional payments towards principle now... -Paul
[2020-02-21 09:58:39] - Btw, I think awhile ago we were discussing whether or not Trump has escalated drone strikes or not under his administration (I think the general consensus was that we didn't know because nobody was reporting on it), but I heard something this morning which seems to confirm that yes, he HAS escalated drone strikes over what Obama did. -Paul
[2020-02-21 09:57:24] - a: Probably. Seems like Trump is pardoning everybody these days. -Paul
[2020-02-20 16:55:26] - roger stone sentenced to 3 years. could be worse, honestly. those guys that all quit asked for 7-9 years. and after they quit, the judge gave him 3? do you guys think he'll get pardoned? link ~a
[2020-02-20 16:09:16] - There was also talk of helping to extend things out by using credit cards for as many expenses as possible (which we pretty much do anyway) and paying at the last minute to reduce the amount of interest you pay for the HELOC since it is charged daily. -Paul
[2020-02-20 16:07:29] - daniel: actually, we talked about APR recently (it's still on this page), but apr accounts for upfront costs, which heloc doesn't usually have. so . . . that can confuse things a little bit. ~a
[2020-02-20 16:06:25] - Most interest rates are given in annualized form so I don't think that matters no. Its possible perhaps that there exceptions to that but I'm not sure that is actually legal. Isn't APR like a legal requirement? -Daniel
[2020-02-20 16:06:22] - a: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/real-estate-and-landlording/mortgage-payoff-acceleration-using-heloc/msg912303/?PHPSESSID=qc9h07il88dn58kv0eh8qlrb2p#msg912303 If you only read one post, this is the one I am confused but intrigued about. I just don't understand it. -Paul
[2020-02-20 16:05:57] - paul: if you spend less than you make, then just pay down your mortgage early! i guess, in the case of a low heloc rate, you could tie those together. hmmm, maybe this is a good idea. ~a
[2020-02-20 16:02:47] - a: The idea is that this only works if you spend less than you make (which I would think should be obvious). So yeah, you pay your regular mortgage payment as normal, but every few months make a big payment towards principle using the HELOC as a rotating line of credit. -Paul
[2020-02-20 16:02:29] - "daily interest and monthly interested doesn't... uh... make a difference?" no because the rates usually account for that difference. the daily rate will be less than 1/30.4th of the monthly interest. ~a
[2020-02-20 16:01:19] - Daniel: The difference between daily interest and monthly interested doesn't... uh... make a difference? I agree it sounds like it shouldn't work, but I've seen enough articles online about it that it also doesn't sound like a scam.... just complicated and hard to work out because it involves juggling a lot of money. -Paul
[2020-02-20 16:01:08] - "doing it on a month by month basis" oh jesus. take out an heloc to pay for one month of your mortgage? wtf that's still broken because most people can't just pay down two mortgage payments in one month. even if you could though, i feel like it's a lot of work and buys you quite literally nothing unless the heloc rate is really low. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:59:38] - a: Right, I know, I was oversimplifying before. Most of the people suggesting this talk about doing it on a month by month basis. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:59:36] - If you can get a better rate on the HELOC then sure. But thats where the savings come from. Not from any weird loan calculations. -Daniel
[2020-02-20 15:58:55] - "if the interest rate spikes you can just close up shop and move on" no you can't do this. (i haven't read your mmm link yet). you can't do this because you can't withdraw money from your mortgage to pay off your heloc. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:58:35] - Paul: I had someone try to convince me of the HELOC thing before and I looked into it. I'm 100% with adrian. Math doesn't check out. Any savings you get are from a better potential rate on the HELOC. Its all just a pile of debt and percent interest. Percents don't care which pile the money is in or how much is in how many piles. 10% of one big pile or 10% of 100 small piles is still the same added up. -Daniel
[2020-02-20 15:58:01] - a: Especially if you take it month by month (essentially), so that if the interest rate spikes you can just close up shop and move on. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:57:39] - a: Most of the people poo poo it because they said just invest the money instead of paying down cheap debt, which I don't necessarily disagree with. But assuming you want to focus on paying down your mortgage, it sounds like this might work? -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:56:45] - a: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/real-estate-and-landlording/mortgage-payoff-acceleration-using-heloc/ Yeah, maybe I didn't provide the best introduction to the proposed solution. Part of the problem is I haven't found one that I think does a good job. Here is a MMM thread discussing it. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:55:25] - oh, nm. they did. they used the word "variable" so i didn't see it. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:54:52] - it's also super weird your first link didn't mention this at all. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:52:37] - "All HELOCs are adjustable rate mortgages" omg. we've been talking about the wrong thing this whole time, paul. let's talk about that a bit, since it matters 1000x more. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:51:39] - paul: (i've never paid upfront costs on a mortgage, sorry) so, i guess i should say, if the annual amortized rate (i was calling that APR, but i wasn't counting upfront costs) is the same, then it doesn't matter if you're paying monthly or daily. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:46:29] - a: I don't think APR for HELOC means the same thing, because it really can't if it is calculated daily. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:46:13] - a: https://www.mtgprofessor.com/A%20-%20Second%20Mortgages/what_is_a_heloc.htm "Don’t compare the APR on a HELOC with the APR on a standard loan because they mean different things. The APR on a HELOC is the interest rate, period." -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:44:14] - oh is that what we're talking about? daily vs monthly? if the **apr** is the same, then daily == monthly. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:43:40] - a: Daily < monthly. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:43:32] - "Making a large early payment on your mortgage will reduce the amount of interest you pay on your loan. You'll have a smaller loan balance, and interest is charged against your loan balance, so you'll pay less." link ~a
[2020-02-20 15:43:29] - it's not on a schedule. it's charged monthly. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:43:19] - but your interest payments will be smaller. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:43:01] - a: The difference is I am paying it off like 20 years sooner or whatever. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:42:45] - a: I'm saying if I pay $500k towards my mortgage tomorrow, I will still owe the same regular monthly payment on March 1st that I did on February 1st... unless I recast my mortgage. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:41:53] - a: We can, but that doesn't seem relevant. I can find plenty of other articles that are thinly veiled advertisements for other things. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:41:52] - paul: on a mortgage, the interest is charged monthly. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:41:37] - "You can pay more, but it doesn't affect your monthly payment unless you recast it" i'm not sure i understand that statement, but i probably disagree. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:41:17] - a: But on a HELOC, the interest is charged daily. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:41:10] - can we also briefly discuss that this article is a very thinly veiled advertisement for lending tree? ~a
[2020-02-20 15:40:38] - a: You can pay more, but it doesn't affect your monthly payment unless you recast it. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:40:36] - paul: right, but you have to pay the *same* *rate* on that money. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:40:14] - a: But this might just be semantics. If I can borrow $10k right now and pay down some of that principle, it means next month I pay less towards interest, right? -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:40:05] - paul: no if you have no prepayment penalty (uncommon) then you can pay *more* at any time you want. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:39:14] - a: And you DO make the same payment the whole time you have the loan, unless you recast your mortgage. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:38:46] - a: I'm not sure I agree that either of those is wrong. The amortization schedule is set when the mortgage is created, right? -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:35:58] - paul: "On a traditional mortgage, you’re paying interest on the whole balance and making the same payment the whole time you have that loan" again, we now think this is wrong. do you agree? ~a
[2020-02-20 15:35:04] - the relevancy is, mark said "[traditional loans] the interest payments are calculated [on] the initial loan amount". we've proven that otherwise. right? ~a
[2020-02-20 15:33:44] - hmmm. $5 off. might be off by one statement or something. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:33:18] - a: I found it: $2,418.51 -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:32:32] - it doesn't say your interest payment on your statement? that's weird. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:32:31] - a: But I still don't see how this is relevant. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:32:22] - a: Or, well, maybe it is, if you include taxes and insurance. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:32:00] - a: I don't know? There unfortunately doesn't seem to be a way to tell. I doubt it, though, because for my YTD totals the interest paid is around twice the principle paid. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:30:31] - paul: is your interest payment 2413.97 or 2413.98? (i'm not sure how they round pennies). ~a
[2020-02-20 15:29:35] - a: I still don't know how this is relevant, but my principle is $681,592.86 and the rate is 4.25% -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:26:53] - look at your last mortgage statement. tell me your rate and your principle and i can tell you what your interest payment will be. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:26:23] - "Even if the rates are similar, you still may be able to pay the balance in full faster and with lower overall interest because the interest payments are calculated on your monthly balance rather than the initial loan amount." i'm not sure who mark charnet is, or who American Prosperity Group is, but adrian says he's not sure he thinks that is how any of this works. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:24:01] - a: I could be wrong, but I think that's an oversimplification because of how interest payments are calculated for HELOCs vs mortgages. It's a legit "I think" and not just me being nice. I honestly only half understand it and was hoping somebody here could help clarify.
-Paul[2020-02-20 15:22:27] - it doesn't matter? i'll read your article, but what matters is the rate. if i borrow 3% to pay down 3% it doesn't matter if 100% of my mortgage is going to interest or not. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:20:38] - a: So what percentage of your first mortgage payment went towards paying off principle vs interest? -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:18:21] - paul: i think you're confused. how about we do an example. my rate is 3.375%. that's a monthly rate of 0.28125% (that is exactly the math they use, and it's why APR is a thing). my principle was 748k, so my first interest payment was 2.10375k (to the penny). does this help any? ~a
[2020-02-20 15:17:54] - a: https://www.valuepenguin.com/mortgages/should-i-pay-off-home-early-with-heloc "On a traditional mortgage, you’re paying interest on the whole balance and making the same payment the whole time you have that loan, Charnet said. With a HELOC, you’re paying interest on a declining balance, so it’s a much faster payoff, he said." -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:16:05] - sorry i'm tying up an example. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:15:56] - a: Nope to which part?
-Paul[2020-02-20 15:14:38] - nope. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:14:29] - a: So if you could, in theory, borrow like $10k and use that to pay down principle, then using your excess income to pay back that $10k loan, aren't you basically shifting the amortization schedule some? -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:12:34] - a: I.... don't think that's right? Early on in a mortgage, your payment goes like 90% towards interest with hardly nothing going towards principle (I really hope I am using the right "principle" vs "principal"). -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:08:11] - no i do not understand. and it does not help out more. heloc (as you've described it here) works exactly the same as every fixed mortgage. so if the rates are the same, you get nothing. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:07:15] - a: Yeah, sorry, I kinda mixed up what I was talking about. Hopefully you understood, though? Like, if I can borrow money at the same interest rate as my mortgage, and use it to pay down more of my mortgage principle now... that helps out more? I think? -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:03:59] - paul: "the interest is just calculated each day and not amortized" nah, "the interest is just calculated each day" == "amortized". i think most people don't understand that. "mortgage debt is ... more interest up front": please don't read this literally, and look at how your mortgage is *actually* calculated. it's just done on how much you owe on your balance each month. ~a
[2020-02-20 15:01:49] - a: It can be, but doesn't have to be. As far as I can tell, the main benefit (but not necessarily only benefit) is that mortgage debt is amortized to where you pay more interest up front whereas HELOCs are.... simple? normal? Where the interest is just calculated each day and not amortized. -Paul
[2020-02-20 15:00:27] - is the heloc rate lower than your mortgage rate? ~a
[2020-02-20 14:57:37] - a: I'm intrigued by it and think that it might actually work to help pay down our mortgage faster. -Paul
[2020-02-20 14:57:08] - no. why. ~a
[2020-02-20 14:41:21] - Anybody here ever think about using a HELOC to accelerate paying off a mortgage? -Paul
[2020-02-20 14:16:38] - Daniel: It was so striking how my 5 best ideas were so consistently outperforming the freedom portfolio (~30 positions) that it made me consider trying to concentrate my portfolio more down to closer to ~20 positions. -Paul
[2020-02-20 14:16:04] - Daniel: That's fair, and I don't necessarily think you're wrong to stick to your guns. Still a small sample size overall. What's interesting is that the sample size of 5 has changed MY thinking by a tiny bit (pi / 18 radians, maybe). -Paul
[2020-02-20 14:13:50] - right, but that's kinda my point. his system allows you to pick funds. i picked gbtc (etf) one time, acbff (now acb. etf), and upro (etf). i know you picked some mutual funds. i think the five-fund thing just keeps it simple, but a winning strategy (if one exists) shouldn't necessitate a huge or small number of funds/stocks, right? ~a
[2020-02-20 14:10:58] - a: Sorry five stock portfolio. Five funds could definitely be sufficient. -Daniel
[2020-02-20 14:10:30] - Since it reflects the decisions that go along with actual money. Do I anticipate changing off my index approach? No. I still think the data against active fund management seems much more comprehensive than our stock challenges. I think the line of argument that individuals are different from active management is perhaps your best bet of convincing me but I'm not sure I totally agree / understand there either. -Daniel
[2020-02-20 14:09:32] - "its hard to see anyone advocating for a five fund portfolio as a real thing". that's weird, i don't think this helps or hurts his case! five funds is a pretty normal number of funds especially when any of them can be vtsax or vt or something like that. ~a
[2020-02-20 14:08:03] - Paul: I don't think the stock market challenges have changed my mind much. I think you all have done better than I thought initially whenever it was that those started 2017? Ealier? I think that I don't place a lot of stock (ha!) in them because its hard to see anyone advocating for a five fund portfolio as a real thing. I think your freedom portfolio stuff is more interesting. -Daniel
[2020-02-20 13:43:43] - a: Maybe... -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:27:42] - 🤖
[2020-02-20 13:27:16] - wait? why do you want emoji/giphy? was it so we could post this? ~a
[2020-02-20 13:21:43] - you can post emoji. 🤡! ~a
[2020-02-20 13:20:19] - a: See, this is where emoji or giphy support on the message board would be useful.
-Paul[2020-02-20 13:19:40] - whew! i never would have expected daniel to make a 1/2 radian change so flippantly. 1/6 radians is a little more reasonable. ~a
[2020-02-20 13:17:18] - a: Apparently I was wrong and it is pi/18, if that helps. -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:16:54] - pi/6? pi/6! awwww man, now that's all i can think about! ~a
[2020-02-20 13:09:07] - a: I have no idea. Pi / 6? -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:08:22] - how many radians is that. ~a
[2020-02-20 13:07:20] - And just do I don't get a finger wagging by Adrian, I'm not at all trying to say this proves anything. Heck, I'm still pretty sure that a lot of it is luck in that we haven't had to deal with a sustained down market yet. I'm not asking if you have had a complete 180 change of opinion, but maybe a 10 degree change? -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:05:54] - Daniel: And a lot of those losses have been by a few percentage points, whereas many of the wins have been dominating wins. I know it's extremely early, but the trend is holding for 2020 as well. -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:04:43] - Daniel: Sorry, I think my numbers were off. I think it's more 9-3. Either way, the wins outnumber the losses by a decent margin and I would argue that the people who follow stocks most closely (Adrian and I) have yet to lose to the market. -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:02:31] - a: Well, it was mostly a joke.
-Paul[2020-02-20 13:02:15] - Daniel: Because by my count, I think it's been something like 11 wins, 3 losses, and 1 tie when it comes to people picking individual stocks vs your portfolios of index funds. It's also worth noting that one of those losses was Aaron's "A Poopy Fart" portfolio and another one is winning if you extend out the time frame to over a year. -Paul
[2020-02-20 13:00:17] - paul: i don't think one data point and "proved" should be used in the same sentence. ~a
[2020-02-20 12:59:57] - Daniel: Aaron's xkcd post brings up something I have been meaning to check in with you about. With the caveat that I don't want this to sound like trash talk at all.... has the outcome of 4 different "stock market challenge" / "fantasy investing" competitions involving an average of 4-5 people changed your mind at all about the possibility of individuals beating the market? -Paul
[2020-02-20 12:40:05] - a: I think you proved that corollary wrong with "A Poopy Fart".
-Paul[2020-02-20 11:42:50] - it's heavily inspired by The New Tetris but it's a different animal. it's gotten to the point where it's more fun for me to play it than to program it, which is sort of a unique hazard of indie game development. ha ha - aaron
[2020-02-20 11:41:17] - a: i'll have a prototype ready by this saturday actually, i'll send it to you so you can understand vaguely what the game's about. maybe you can bring it on a laptop if we want other people to try it and see what they think - aaron
[2020-02-20 11:40:33] - a: i don't have anything specific in mind, just something vaguely like puyo puyo or maybe an old arcade game called pnickies. ideally stuff that just looks big and blobby instead of small and square - aaron
[2020-02-20 11:37:41] - https://xkcd.com/2270/ picking bad stocks - aaron
[2020-02-20 11:17:04] - a: Not anymore.
-Paulprev <-> next