prev <-> next
[2020-04-29 19:17:57] - aDaniel: Thanks, btw. Expect another question in April 2021. -Paul
[2020-04-29 19:17:39] - a: Haha, yes. At least I remembered that I had asked before. I'm 100% serious: my memory is going. Sometimes I have vague recollections that I have asked a question before but can't remember the answer. I'm like an 80 year old senile man. Just call me Joe Biden. -Paul
[2020-04-29 19:01:06] - yeah, from april 2019: "paul: i have no idea what the default is, but it could be they force you to decide. regardless, here's where it's set: image (also check out the one right below it. i've discussed specID here a bunch)" ~a
[2020-04-29 18:59:05] - omg, paul, i just found this in my imgur history: https://imgur.com/OloQdPn . . . i have a strong feeling you've asked this question one year before. i even highlighted it for you in red both times! ~a
[2020-04-29 18:56:57] - shout-out to my favorite cost basis method: specid! ~a
[2020-04-29 18:56:16] - paul: highlighted in red ~a
[2020-04-29 18:25:58] - Paul: Pretty sure yes. I think there is an option to choose in the begining that you can change later to have dividends reinvested or put in your settlement fund. -Daniel
[2020-04-29 18:08:37] - aDaniel: I assume dividends are reinvested for things like VTSAX? Is there a way to tell them to stop reinvesting dividends? Let's say because I am in retirement and want to start building up a cash balance to withdraw? -Paul
[2020-04-29 18:07:05] - a: Not sure I get any deeper meaning to those jokes either. -Paul
[2020-04-29 18:00:03] - what's the point of "one prisoner and one gun". i don't think i get that either. ~a
[2020-04-29 17:46:16] - love the "4 gunboats at 6 miles an hour" joke.
~a[2020-04-29 17:45:28] - 1864. interesting political cartoon from the us civil war. i get the overall point, but some of the details are lost on me (what's the "capital joke", i mean i get it's a pun, but i don't think i get the other meaning) ~a
[2020-04-29 15:49:22] - a: Yes, sorry, I meant a lot of the central bank actions taken to expand the monetary supply of fiat currencies. -Paul
[2020-04-29 15:18:19] - (me just looking back at m2), oh! i just realized by "printing", you said "fiat currencies". you can ignore some of my comments, i thought you meant btc printing. ~a
[2020-04-29 15:08:28] - so, after the halvening in may, bitcoin will be about on-par with gold. ~a
[2020-04-29 15:06:37] - paul: also, other interesting "monetary inflation" numbers i have in my back pocket. gold *literal* mining, which could be compared to monetary inflation: 2%/year, silver literal mining: 4%/year. ~a
[2020-04-29 15:04:37] - paul: well, i don't disagree or agree about hedge funds taking a position, but the printing has been small. us m2 monetary inflation has been ~5%/year, and bitcoin has been smaller than that, at ~4%/year. so we'd see bitcoin deflation relative to usd even with no change in "popularity". ~a
[2020-04-29 14:58:11] - a: I wonder if that implies that maybe some central banks or hedge funds might've taken a small position. Seems like it might be hard for btc to keep up with those monetary supplies of fiat currencies given the printing going on. -Paul
[2020-04-29 14:54:43] - apples and oranges comparison, of course, but there it is. ~a
[2020-04-29 14:53:58] - paul: all-cryptocurrencies = .25t, precious metals = 10t, us m2 = 10t, s&p500 = 20t, world m2 = 100t. ~a
[2020-04-29 14:51:50] - a: Ah, okay. But it's not equal to all... uh... things, right? I imagine the monetary base compared to precious metals is a lot different than compared to USD. -Paul
[2020-04-29 14:50:46] - a: We're in agreement. I'm not worried about where btc goes on May 12th. I'm interested in where it is in 2030. -Paul
[2020-04-29 14:50:23] - paul: sorry, i didn't mean that kind of equilibrium. by equilibrium, i don't mean anything specifically. i mean, bitcoin popularity is . . . high? the monetary base is ~2% compared to precious metals. if a different equation was picked that 2% might have been .0002%? ~a
[2020-04-29 14:49:22] - paul: no reason to be bullish on the halving. that's dumb. if anything a crash/decline is possible when everybody is projecting bullishness. i'm only discussing the factual nature of it happening and what that means for the long-term. ~a
[2020-04-29 14:47:53] - a: Also, I don't understand why everybody is bullish on the halving. I get that in the past btc went up a lot after a halving, but shouldn't that be kinda priced in now? I guess the same money chasing fewer bitcoins should cause a bump... -Paul
[2020-04-29 14:46:11] - a: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by equilibrium. Do you mean that that the rate of new bitcoin production has been relatively flat? -Paul
[2020-04-29 14:42:03] - paul: the third bitcoin block halving is coming. looks like it'll likely be may 12th in the early morning. what's crazy to me is that the monetary inflation (currency devaluation) equation decided in 2008 actually worked. some semblance of equilibrium actually occurred and i'm not sure if that would have happened if a different equation was picked. ~a
[2020-04-29 14:18:31] - a: I'm watching a video presentation from TMF about calculating rates of return and they're talking about the XIRR function in Excel. I know we talked about this earlier, but is there a reason that doesn't work well? -Paul
[2020-04-29 02:48:55] - https://amashforamerica.com/ It's happening! -Paul
[2020-04-28 16:32:28] - Ugh, too many adverbs there. Sorry. -Paul
[2020-04-28 16:32:13] - a: I am amazed by how many followers I have that certainly seem to obviously be bots (username = generic first name followed by random numbers, no followers but following a lot of people, etc). -Paul
[2020-04-28 16:09:11] - a: Twitter's account creation process is already sophisticated enough to prevent Xpovos from creating an account.
-Paul[2020-04-28 15:38:55] - at some point, do you think they should make account-creation filtering more sophisticated? i mean, i do see both sides of this. for example wikipedia and some other website i use a lot
don't even have account-creation. (to be completely honest, we will have to go through account-creation if the spammers become more of a problem here) ~a[2020-04-28 15:34:56] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-1RhQ1uuQ4 for the curious. -Daniel
[2020-04-28 15:34:19] - a: Smarter every day did a video at one point on twitter. They filter out / ban / remove an absurd number of accounts they deem fake / malacious. -Daniel
[2020-04-28 15:18:19] - "Twitter reportedly suspended more than 1 million fake and suspicious accounts each day in recent months in an effort to stifle the flow of fake news and scams" 1 million accounts per day. in 2018. wth. ~a
[2020-04-28 15:14:59] - this article about twitter spam . . . actually an uber specific kind of twitter scam . . . is relevant. the weird part for me is that the article was written two years ago. why FOR YEARS, do i keep seeing eth/btc "give-away" scams: relating to tesla for some reason? so specific! ~a
[2020-04-27 15:23:30] - a: Yup yup. This is less about actually retiring then and more about tracking how... uh... on track we are. I'm simplifying things because our situation is a little messier all around, but we do have non retirement funds too. -Paul
[2020-04-27 15:21:05] - roth ladder will let you access retirement funds before 59.5, but that usually requires non-retirement funds. sepp also lets you access retirement funds before 59.5, but i don't plan on using sepp. ~a
[2020-04-27 15:17:51] - well careful there. if you only have retirement funds, you likely won't be able to retire before 59.5. ~a
[2020-04-27 15:17:24] - a: Yes, good point, I am not counting house equity. Honestly, I'm just counting retirement funds (IRAs and 401(k)s) for now. Thanks! -Paul
[2020-04-27 15:11:04] - paul: also we've probably discussed this already, but it bears repeating. make sure your house equity is not included in your retirement portfolio ("liquid net worth"). ~a
[2020-04-27 15:10:37] - paul: yes, you def should add back in property tax. also, make sure all taxes are included: federal, state, and local. estimating taxes in retirement is *hard*. i've tried and it gets ugly especially if you include roth laddering. still, many people will see a decrease in taxes. ~a
[2020-04-27 15:10:21] - Paul: I use 3.25 or or 3.5%. I play around with them some so its not always the same. As for determining your budget that seems like a starting place? Kids college? Taxes. Travel plans? Its hard to tell you what your budget should be cause it CAN be almost anything. -Daniel
[2020-04-27 15:08:17] - (3% is very conservative in my opinion, yes) ~a
[2020-04-27 15:05:33] - a: Also, when calculating money needed in retirement (that annual income needed), I am mostly taking our income now and subtracting out our mortgage payment (I am assuming we will have our house paid off). Does that seem safe? I guess I should add back in property tax. -Paul
[2020-04-27 15:04:25] - a: Okay, so if I take my projected annual income needed in retirement and divide it by 0.03 (3% withdrawal), then in theory that should be plenty safe for somebody retiring early (although, as always, things could change with something drastic happening)? -Paul
[2020-04-27 14:53:45] - (for what it's worth, i'm personally planning on 3.8%-3.9% as a withdraw rate. and planning on retiring early.) ~a
[2020-04-27 14:47:09] - his reddit comment hasn't been peer reviewed.
so take that with a grain of salt. ~a[2020-04-27 14:45:35] - yes, the projections require 30 year retirement. now, if you want a longer retirement, most people say you should decrease the 4% to a lower number. however, the author of the trinity study, literally said "if you plan to live forever, 4% should do it". sounds crazy to be, but it's what he said. link. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:42:32] - aDaniel: Thanks, but aren't these numbers and projections for retiring at 65? What if I wanted to move that number up to 55? Doesn't that change things? Also, what return to you guys project for your investments going forward? Is it a flat number or does it change as you get closer to retirement to reflect a switch from equities to safer investments like bonds? -Paul
[2020-04-27 14:41:51] - daniel: that's right. with the 4% rule, at retirement, you take your liquid portfolio balance, multiply by 4%, and withdraw that amount every year (adjusted for inflation). you cannot increase that amount above inflation even if the market is doing well. decreasing is fine obviously. i can envision scenarios where i would revise up, but they are very dangerous, because you're no longer protected by all of the back-testing. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:19:37] - a: I assume you mean up (up over inflation) is not ok? I think it increases risk. I can envision scenarios where I would revise up. -Daniel
[2020-04-27 14:12:24] - i don't have a critique of the 4% rule. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:11:28] - my larger point is: adjusting your numbers in one direction is ok. adjusting your numbers in the other direction is not. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:10:32] - a: I'm still not sure what your larger point is? Worry about following the advice of the trinity study? Critique of the 4% rule? Yes you adjust for inflation according to its "rules". My point is that while for the study they were rules in real life they can be more like guidelines. So if weird things are happening one can adjust their numbers in some fashion as they feel are neccessary. -Daniel
[2020-04-27 14:06:47] - "rarely" actually should have been "never", i believe. actually according to the trinity study. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:06:04] - as i keep reading, market tanking is rarely what hurts retirees. it's always inflation. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:05:12] - daniel: the scenario that often comes up throughout history: market goes up, people increase their withdraw (or worse, their cost-of-living!), then a *huge* increase in inflation wipe out peoples savings over a decade. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:03:41] - "being conservative at that point is probably prudent" my point is that this is *not* conservative. it's strictly required by the study. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:03:12] - daniel: when the market goes *up*: if you continue to withdraw 4%. the "confusion" is when you blindly follow 4%, instead of read the withdrawal system: you have to hard-code the withdraw amount, and only *increase* it with inflation. you ignore 4% after the first day of retirement. ~a
[2020-04-27 14:03:08] - a: I think there are scenarios where you could revise it safely up but yeah being conservative at that point is probably prudent. Like if the market has 5 boom years to start maybe then you could revise up some? Or if you get to Social Security and its still looking fine maybe you feel safe enough to be slightly less conservative. -Daniel
[2020-04-27 14:01:27] - a: I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I know the trinity study did a straight forward test where they never deviated from their withdrawal amount but I'm not sure where you are going with your statement. That if you increase your withdrawal then the promises are moot? I would agree that if you change your amount up you would need to be careful with that. -Daniel
[2020-04-27 13:52:46] - daniel: "the hard coded amount is not so hard coded...market tanks" the important thing is that you don't increase the amount? i've seen dozens of commenters that assume 4% means that if the market goes up, you can increase your withdrawal, and the trinity study "promises" don't apply in this scenario. ~a
[2020-04-27 01:00:57] - a: Yeah thats why people who retire early shoot for a withdrawal rate of under 4%. The hard coded amount is not so hard coded. It is for the math for the study but pretty much everyone agrees that if you retire and the market tanks then you should be willing to adjust your numbers. -Daniel
[2020-04-26 23:05:08] - daniel: that formula did not come from me, but i agree with it. there are 12 months in a year and 1/annualWithdrawRate is the total amount you need (this comes with it a *lot* of very strict assumptions that the 4% trinity study requires: that at retirement you hard-code your withdraw rate to a dollar per time period (inflation adjusted): not a percentage. and that your retirement isn't longer than 30 years) ~a
[2020-04-26 19:44:47] - I think if you looked at annual spending you could do it differently but generally I look at our spending / budget in terms of monthly spending so thats how I do it. /shrug -Daniel
[2020-04-26 19:44:25] - Paul: It can be for x number of people as long as the monthly spending doesn't change. So if more people changes the spending then that would be the number to change for that. The 369.231 comes from (1 / <withdrawl_rate> ) * 12 which I think is a formula I looked up or came from Adrian? to take an annual withdrawal rate and make it monthly. -Daniel
[2020-04-26 18:34:53] - Daniel: Sorry, where does 369.231 come from? I only ask because I came up with a similar number (a little over $2 million). I assume that's for the both of you combined? -Paul
[2020-04-26 18:28:33] - Paul: Currently my goal is a projected spending of 6700 a month (this is one of the numbers that changes most often as I try out different budgets / our spending changes) and a withdrawal rate of 3.25% because I'm trying to retire early so trying to give a cushion under the 4% rule which gives a target of $2,473,846.15 (6700 * 369.231). -Daniel
[2020-04-26 18:24:51] - Paul: You can take a projected monthly spending and multiply it by 400 (conservative) or by like 342 (less conservative) or by 300 (maybe slightly risky) -Daniel
[2020-04-26 18:23:05] - -Daniel
[2020-04-26 18:23:03] - Paul: Depends on how much they spend
[2020-04-26 16:35:32] - Daniel: Sorry, I know we had this discussion before, but do you have any calculations or estimates for how much somebody needs saved in order to retire at age 55? -Paul
[2020-04-24 18:07:45] - a: Oh, right, sorry. Thanks. -Paul
[2020-04-24 18:06:38] - Paul: That's assuming 100% infectivity, which is highly unlikely. Most likely, even in a worst case scenario, only 70-80% of the population will actually contract the virus. -- Xpovos
[2020-04-24 18:06:28] - paul: no. you're confusing *total* people (per capita) with "cases" (cfr) or "infections" (ifr). ~a
[2020-04-24 18:04:24] - Xpovos: Wait, isn't 1,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths per 1,000,000 people a CFR of 0.1%? Wouldn't that be.... great? -Paul
[2020-04-24 17:50:26] - My personal benchmarks. < 200 = Incalculably good success. Implausible on the order of China's data manipulation. < = 350 Massive success. Human beings and their decision making processes overcame nature. < 500 = Success. Social distancing worked. < 800 = Social distancing didn't really work, but it slowed things down perhaps. >= 1000 = No human measures helped beyond perhaps slowing, and probably only minimally. -- Xpovos
[2020-04-24 17:39:48] - Data as of earlier today. Covid-19 confirmed deaths per million population: Nationwide: 155.7. Fairfax County: 77.3. Prince William County: 38.3. Unsurprisingly, this is hitting population centers hardest and fastest. -- Xpovos
[2020-04-24 16:13:31] - Paul: And yet, he's still got basically even odds at winning re-election. Wooooooooo. -- Xpovos
[2020-04-24 16:00:42] - a: I mean, he pretty much directly looked at a solar eclipse without any protection, right? He's playing Darwin awards bingo it seems like. -Paul
[2020-04-24 16:00:13] - a: Sure, I agree they're different degrees. One leads directly to death while the other is.... two steps away from a contradiction. Trump is unique in all sorts of ways of horribleness. It's different, but maybe a neighbor to other stupid things I see from politicians all the time.That's why I said not "TOO" different.
-Paul[2020-04-24 15:37:21] - paul: (other "price controls" thread) it's only different because this time it's so fucking specific. it's an instruction manual for literal death. in your scenario there are multiple steps that can be "screwed up" by a functioning society. this time it's basically: take poison and put it in your mouth, or just fucking inject it directly into your blood stream. ~a
[2020-04-24 15:33:36] - a: Hehe, I thought about it a few times previously too in a "More evidence for your side" kind of post. I don't know if it has been "proven", but there's enough studies that have been done now where I'm seriously doubting if this is a worthwhile treatment.
-Paul[2020-04-24 15:29:52] - paul: multiple times i considered posting hydroxychloroquine things, but i was like "paul will just say that the scientists haven't decided yet". i'm glad you've come around. hopefully the president will see it the same way. ~a
[2020-04-24 15:28:16] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-citing-a-primary-outcome-of-death-researchers-cut-chloroquine-study-short-over-safety-concerns.html Sounds like you were right about this one. -Paul
[2020-04-24 15:27:14] - a: It's idiocracy come true.
Honestly, though, this doesn't seem TOO different to me compared to when politicians decry the high cost of rent in one breath and then advocate for more price controls and regulations on housing construction in the next (and similar things). -Paul[2020-04-24 15:06:53] - "please don't drink disinfectant", "we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body". why? why are we doing this? the blind are leading the blind. soon the blindness will be literal. ~a
[2020-04-24 14:50:38] - a: Yeah, it's creative destruction. I mean, I guess part of me feels a little bad when companies go out of business and the like and entire industries (horse buggy whips?) go away, but I believe it's for the greater good ultimately. -Paul
[2020-04-24 14:44:44] - paul: yep. i meant capitalism in general really. but yeah, the stock market specifically. ~a
[2020-04-24 14:21:53] - a: "Our system"? You mean the stock market? -Paul
[2020-04-24 13:34:43] - paul/pierce: with our system we're always watching millions of humans attack each-other, their livelihood, and sometimes their life, are at stake, and the stock market is taking bets. if we were literally watching people attack each-other, like in some sort of blood sport, and we were taking bets, i see (now?) that would be awful. the stock market (and to a lesser degree, these side-bets) are different somehow, i guess. ~a
[2020-04-24 11:31:54] - Heck, it's why I picked Kamala Harris first in my presidential candidate draft.... I hated the idea of her becoming the nominee, but she seemed really well positioned. In that case I was rooting against my pick AND it was a stupid pick.
-Paul[2020-04-24 11:30:45] - If I were to tie the two most recent topics together in the maximally awkward way... I might say it is a lesson that I learned from investing: Just because you WANT a company to do well, it doesn't mean it will. You have to try to separate emotions from what you logically think might happen. -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:26:42] - Pierce: But even if I had taken the opposite side, I think I possess the cognitive dissonance (is that the right term?) to think that something is going to happen but still be rooting against it. It's just like an election where I am 99.9% the libertarian is going to lose but would love to be proven wrong. -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:25:29] - Pierce: I suppose it gets a little messy if you find yourself ROOTING for some level of death as a result of a bet, but looking back, all of mine have been on the "optimistic" side, so I'm generally rooting for less death and destruction. -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:24:34] - Pierce: From a broad sense, I don't feel any guilt because betting on this shouldn't affect the actual outcome of anything at all. I can see how it might outwardly be morbid to be betting on something like an individual bet (ie, will Biden and/or Trump survive to the end of the upcoming presidential term), but I also personally wouldn't see a problem with that either. -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:21:49] - Pierce: No apology necessary for me at all. I assure you I wasn't offended in the slightest, I was just confused by the question, I guess. Please feel free to be honest, but were you thinking of stuff like the CFR bet? -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:20:39] - a: Again, not in a "I am proving that stock picking can work" kind of way, but a.... uh... could I consider a career change? kind of way. -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:19:57] - a: That's just not practical in the real world. I mean, I have to imagine plenty of people are getting jobs managing tons of money with track records that are a lot shorter than mine. So.... should my ~15 year or so record of beating the market mean I might be good at this? -Paul
[2020-04-24 11:18:40] - a: I have actually very much been struggling with that exact question myself lately, and not just from a "how do I prove Daniel and Adrian wrong" POV. While I think a person probably needs a decade plus of impressive results to feel good about their chances of actually being a good investor... -Paul
[2020-04-24 04:09:06] - tone analysis: 78% contrition; 87% love; 37% anger; 13% tar; margin of error ±NaN%. - pierce
[2020-04-24 04:01:57] - (but seriously, sorry for being more judgemental than you deserve) - pierce
[2020-04-24 04:01:07] - and "adming" is the totes new spelling for "admit" in case you're not on fleek enough to know that. - pierce
[2020-04-24 03:59:48] - paul: and no, that comment wasn't directed at you specifically, I promise. - pierce
[2020-04-24 03:59:20] - I'll be honest that I had a bad day on top of frustration about a lot of the systemic aspects of the current situation. I don't blame you all for it and shouldn't focus that frustration on you just because you can hear me. I'll adming that that comment has been simmering in my mind, though. - pierce
[2020-04-24 03:05:01] - i agree with your last three messages, mostly. so don't take this as indictment of them, it's an honest question: how do i determine if i'm good or not? ~a
[2020-04-24 02:49:27] - I'm making the radical (sarcasm) argument that investing is like pretty much everything else in life that I can think of: Some people are good at it and some people are not.
-Paul[2020-04-24 02:45:45] - a: But the flip side that I feel like I am working against is the idea that EVERYBODY is bad at investing and cannot beat an index fund (or that it is pure luck if somebody does). -Paul
[2020-04-24 02:44:50] - a: I guess the survivorship bias comment was aimed at me? I'm not sure I get the relevance, though. If people can be "good" at something, then people can also be bad at it. I don't think I have ever argued that everybody can and will beat an index fund. To me, that's almost like saying everybody can be above average. -Paul
[2020-04-24 02:43:20] - Daniel: Well, you can search by analyst name. I've never really used the site. I think a lot of functionality is hidden behind a paywall? -paul
[2020-04-24 02:38:41] - pierce: it's not easy to read tone in text: does it make you mad? we can make the bets privately if they piss you off. if not, i guess i'll just say i don't see the harm or the insensitivity of most of them. most of our bets don't have human elements. most are for entertainment value or for arguments sake: it's hard to measure the chances of nintendo being acquired by tencent before 2030, but it's easy to make a bet to that effect. ~a
[2020-04-24 02:31:25] - Paul: I don't see a full list there, just a top 25? I guess people don't want to post a full list cause it seems mean to those not on top? If there isn't a full list then its harder to find equal anecdotal evidence to counter your Mr Gardener
-Daniel[2020-04-24 02:30:08] - Pierce: Was that question directed at me? And if so, is it about investing or my side bets with people about CFR and whatnot? I'm going to guess it's not directed at me because I'm not making a living off any of this.
-Paul[2020-04-24 02:26:35] - Daniel: https://www.tipranks.com/ I've heard this site mentioned a few time as something that attempts to do this, but every time I've heard it mentioned, there has always been the caveat that they aren't necessarily perfect at it (the implication being sometimes they get picks incorrect). -Paul
[2020-04-24 01:42:19] - ha ha ha ha ha etc. but seriously? - pierce
[2020-04-24 01:38:26] - pierce: i'm always rooting for the most human suffering. did you watch that scene from trading places where the rich assholes bet $1 on whether eddie murphy would break or not? we are those rich assholes. ~a
[2020-04-24 01:35:49] - genuinely curious, to what degree do the human aspects of real-world circumstances affect the fun of the market games or pandemic bets you're playing? like, I don't blame you if you're trying to make an actual living (in a tough world) out of understanding this all... but if it's not that then is it just a specatator sport? - pierce
[2020-04-24 00:44:06] - daniel: nah we like to only talk about the ones who are doing well. the others aren't as fun to talk about. i love that this google image search, is just this same image over and over. ~a
[2020-04-24 00:14:31] - Anyone know a site that tracks / ranks stock pickers like this? Like for fantasy football there are sites that rank the pro's by how their picks work out. Anything like that for people who pick stocks? -Daniel
[2020-04-24 00:07:48] - 1.26**(1/2.5) is beating the market by like 10% per annum. 10% over the market is still crazy high, but i feel like 26 points total is hard to compare with anything. ~a
[2020-04-23 23:46:23] - Daniel: And 20 out of 24 of them are currently beating the market, and they are beating it by an average of 26 percentage points. -Paul
[2020-04-23 23:45:54] - Daniel: One more data point for our eternal debate about beating the market: For about 3-4 years now, David Gardner has been picking "5 stock samplers" publicly on his podcast every few months. He recently checked the aggregate score of all of his samplers... -Paul
[2020-04-23 18:52:52] - I can't find it now, but there was some celebrity the same age as Gary Busey which was really striking in terms of how different they looked... -Paul
[2020-04-23 18:46:18] - a: https://twitter.com/skathire/status/1253386972476903427 This wasn't the tweet I saw before, but here's another example. -Paul
[2020-04-23 18:39:24] - probably. ~a
[2020-04-23 18:38:49] - wait, those are different people? - pierce
[2020-04-23 18:36:24] - in other news from adrian free association: michael shannon and michael cera have similar names. ~a
[2020-04-23 18:35:44] - part of it is definitely lighting, makeup, plus my preconceptions based on the roles they take... dicaprio's history as a young heartthrob vs. shannon's tendency to play authority figures (I really enjoyed his performance in Knives Out as a break from that typecasting) - pierce
[2020-04-23 18:33:50] - revolutionary road, hmm. i would have guessed that clip was from catch me if you can. though, i guess that guy isn't tom hanks. ~a
[2020-04-23 18:32:25] - michael shannon and leonardo dicaprio are the same age, but I easily picture shannon as ~10-15 years older. this gif almost looks like a father talking to his son. - pierce
[2020-04-23 18:31:49] - anywho, i hate the 0.55% guy. he's looking at some different inputs than i am. ~a
[2020-04-23 18:31:05] - *per capita* cases and infections are higher near cities. but per capita deaths are more . . . higher near cities. so ifr and cfr will be higher near cities too. ~a
[2020-04-23 18:28:45] - a: I don't know, that's the problem. It came from the Governor, so I assumed it was state-wide (and I also saw people saying it was an unhelpful metric since upstate and the city are so different). -Paul
[2020-04-23 18:18:31] - alternatively, this is for the city: 11267/(.139*8.40e6) = 1.0% (lower-bound). ~a
[2020-04-23 18:11:54] - oh ah. i guess i fucked that up. is your 13.9% referring to the state? if so, we get: 20792/(.139*19.45e6) = 0.8% (lower-bound). still not 0.6%, but i guess we're closer. ~a
[2020-04-23 18:09:49] - a: Are we talking about New York City? Or New York the state? That was what I was unclear on... -Paul
[2020-04-23 17:46:43] - wait no. i got it backwards. 1.8% is a *lower-bound*. regardless, i'm now more doubtful of his math. ~a
[2020-04-23 17:44:32] - paul: yeah . . . he's going to have to show his work. new york has 20792 deaths from covid19 so far. there are 8.40m new yorkers. 13.9% i got from your comment. 20792/(.139*8.40e6) = 1.8%. this makes the incorrect assumption that everybody who has the infection so far will either live, or has already died: in other words this is an upper-bound for the ifr. still 1.8% and 0.6% are so drastically different, i doubt his math. ~a
[2020-04-23 17:35:00] - a: Ah, I found somebody on twitter who did the math for me. This would indicate a 0.55% IFR, although this same person implied that the CFR could be much different. And, as always, this random person could be somebody who has no idea what they're talking about. -Paul
[2020-04-23 17:19:52] - a: Nah, I said CFR, that's what we stick to. I imagine they should be close-ish by the end of the year (hopefully). -Paul
[2020-04-23 17:15:04] - well that might get you the ifr. i doubt it'll get you the cfr. if you want, we can change the bet. ~a
[2020-04-23 17:13:40] - a: So, it sounds like there's new antibody testing showing 13.9% of New Yorkers have been infected by COVID-19. I can't find the numbers that let me calculate what that means for the CFR or IFR though... -Paul
[2020-04-23 17:13:01] - a: https://www.insider.com/celebrities-who-are-the-same-age-2016-10#singer-jennifer-lopez-and-actress-renee-zellweger-are-49-9 Yeah, there are a lot of actors who look abnormally old (or young) for their age. -Paul
[2020-04-23 16:59:06] - paul: some of them are just weird. 54 days from now i'll be the exact age Javier Bardem was when No Country for Old Men, in which he debuted as enigmatic hitman, Anton Chigurh. like, what the hell? look at this picture! ~a
[2020-04-23 16:34:30] - or neil patrick harris. -Daniel
[2020-04-23 16:22:56] - a: Great. Now I feel old AND worthless (because I've accomplished so much less than people like Martin Luther King Jr). -Paul
[2020-04-23 15:42:54] - oops, "boredbutton" not boardbutton. ~a
[2020-04-23 15:42:26] - i told google i was bored, it sent me to the "boardbutton" which linked me to https://www.agegeek.com/ . . . omg go there if you want to feel old and/or worthless. apparently today i'm "the exact age jack nicholson was when one flew over the cuckoo's nest" jesus i'm old. ~a
[2020-04-23 15:39:31] - i'm bored! someone post something. ~a
[2020-04-22 18:37:18] - a: Nice! Causality for the win! -Paul
[2020-04-22 18:25:33] - paul: you're statistically less like to contract covid19. ~a
[2020-04-22 18:20:28] - a: I try not to see Hannity's coverage of anything. -Paul
[2020-04-22 17:02:57] - and if you haven't seen hannity's coverage of covid, it's pretty amazing. ~a
[2020-04-22 16:56:55] - "Greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight leads to a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths" i don't take this too seriously but it is interesting they compared different *kinds* of fox news coverage. also cool they tried to account for confounding factors etc (causal-ish?) ~a
[2020-04-21 23:24:05] - yeah reactor and streams look very similar codewise, but reactor has a lot more stuff going on. - mig
[2020-04-21 20:53:24] - yeah np. they've been in laptops for a while, but they're mostly taking over the desktop world too. ~a
[2020-04-21 20:52:55] - a: Thanks for pointing out those m2 ssd's. I had no idea they existed before today. Seems like a win for Andrea's and a possible upgrade for my own computer. My (older) mobo doesn't have a m2 slot but apparently they have converter cards that are pretty cheap. -Daniel
[2020-04-21 20:37:35] - I should say that it's been several years since I was actively working in reactive code so feel free to correct me if my info is out of date or rusty, miguel - pierce
[2020-04-21 20:07:43] - and yeah, I think a lot of applications can lend themselves to that very naturally, but it's against the grain of most mainstream languages to actually express things that way so we end up with (as miguel put it) black magicky libraries. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:58:16] - a: I think reactive is better if you have a lot of composed operations (including some blocking ones) over sequences of inputs, especially if the inputs are triggered/generated by events or code that you don't control. and as a bonus, reactive libraries tend to have cleaner ways to express dependencies between upstream and downstream operations, like error handling or feedback. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:47:12] - oh, and if your source sequence requires cleanup (like releasing a connection) hopefully you remembered to register an `onClose` handler and hopefully the consumer knew that and (against all muscle memory) put the Stream in a try/finally or try-with-resources block. but that one's just a pet peeve. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:45:30] - pierce: so, (just making sure i understand you) reactive is better? better at errors, and better at managing blocking? ~a
[2020-04-21 19:43:35] - you can kinda tell that blocking operations weren't really the core concern because of how streams (don't) do error handling. they basically break as soon as anything goes wrong, with only the info about the one operation that failed instead of the ones that succeeded before it, and they don't natively work with checked exceptions (so you have to jump through hoops to use java.io or JDBC or most of the "core" blocking operations) - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:38:42] - there are also convenient tools to help parallelize aggregate operations over sequences, but that's not usually about blocking. in the end, streams are still usually about the consumer saying "do A, then B, then C" over a sequence without caring about which ones are blocking or not, just like in traditional java code. the biggest functional change is lazy evaluation but I rarely see code that actually takes advantage of that. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:37:27] - a: java's streaming API has a lot of the same fluency benefits, but it's not exactly the same thing as the reactive style. I think most of the benefit people get from streams is being able to (visually or functionally) decouple nested operations on elements of a sequence. before that you either had complex loop bodies doing all the transform/filter/aggregate logic at once, or intermediate collections to hold results between loops. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:36:24] - Pierce: I mean, viewed objectively, I've honestly had pretty rotten experiences with most of my employers in that my employment with most of them has ended badly in various ways, but I don't necessarily think they're bad people because of it. -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:34:58] - Pierce: "if you genuinely don't believe those characteristics or behaviors are prevalent in the business world then you and I have had very different experiences" I guess maybe? I would be curious to hear examples of your experiences. I suspect we've had similar experiences and just view them through different lenses. -paul
[2020-04-21 19:34:05] - Pierce: And I think most are trying to balance the dangers of spreading the virus compared to the economic reality of laying off workers or going bankrupt or whatever. -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:33:14] - Pierce: Obviously there is a non-zero number of owners who are probably itching to make irresponsibly bad decisions, just like there are non-zero numbers of employees who make frivolous lawsuits. There's all types of people out there. I just think the vast majority of those owners are like the vast majority of people: Good people trying to do the right thing. -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:31:00] - Pierce: "do you think those businesses are properly balancing broad economic hardship vs. societal health costs, or are even qualified to do so?" No, but I don't know of anybody who is qualified to do so, so I'm not sure it's fair to hold this against businesses. -paul
[2020-04-21 19:29:51] - Pierce: Sure, I don't doubt they would like the shield law and are happy to make it sound like they might not open without it. That doesn't seem any different from any kind of congressional lobbying: You make it sound like you NEED this law or else your industry will suffer greatly. -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:29:03] - if you genuinely don't believe those characteristics or behaviors are prevalent in the business world then you and I have had very different experiences. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:28:06] - it doesn't have to be obvious mustache-twirling villainy... it can just be callousness and ignorance, or being blinded by their personal stress about their financial situation and latching on to legislation like this as a sign that it's okay to reopen. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:24:58] - do you think those businesses are properly balancing broad economic hardship vs. societal health costs, or are even qualified to do so? do you think the decision makers are fully internalizing the dangers, despite bearing less of the burden of those decisions (as white-collar workers with decent health insurance)? do you think there's no meaningful subset of owners who prioritize their profits if they have an excuse? - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:23:03] - paul: that exact thing is what I was highlighting from that report about the CoC memo. companies are currently explicitly saying that they want to reopen even though they know it will cause more deaths, and that shield laws will allow them to do so. - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:15:46] - daniel: for example, 970 evo plus 1tb 25k on passmark. wd black sn750 nvme 1tb ($150) is less expensive than the samsung, but about the same speed, 24k. i didn't see wd blue on there. ~a
[2020-04-21 19:10:18] - yikes $250 GB. i don't know what a $gb is, but that scares me. ~a
[2020-04-21 19:09:39] - daniel/paul: https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/ and https://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ssd.html fyi. ~a
[2020-04-21 19:09:09] - Daniel: Like, there were technically different SSDs, but one would be like $100 for $250 GB and then another would be $400 for a 500 GB (all numbers made up). -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:08:25] - Daniel: When I was looking for SSDs, I would routinely see some that cost tons more for no clear reason (except possibly due to different third party sellers on Amazon). Maybe that's the case here too? -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:07:45] - Pierce: So while you aren't as worried about frivolous lawsuits, I'm not as worried about malicious companies. Sounds like we're on brand. -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:07:19] - Pierce: Oh, then it sounds like we agree on our conclusions (although maybe not how we got there). I guess I would be a little surprised if there are a bunch of companies itching to open and the only thing stopping them is the lack of a law shielding them from lawsuits. -Paul
[2020-04-21 19:06:32] - Yeah the WD blue has 1tb for 120. -Daniel
[2020-04-21 19:03:25] - and i know you can find fairly fast 1tb m2 for less than $212. ~a
[2020-04-21 19:02:56] - daniel: yeah, on that last link, change to 1tb . . . $212. that's much much cheaper than .25tb * 4. ~a
[2020-04-21 19:02:03] - paul: like we've said, it's about tradeoffs. so for the point I'm making, option A should be "the burden of frivolous lawsuits without these shield laws, would exceed the burden to employees and the public from companies reopening prematurely because of these shield laws". - pierce
[2020-04-21 19:00:54] - a: Nevermind I found https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-250gb/p/N82E16820147741 - don't know why that other one is so crazy. -Daniel
[2020-04-21 19:00:10] - sorry. $200. that's too high imo. ~a
[2020-04-21 18:59:48] - uhhh, no? though i can't imagine paying $250 for .25tb. ~a
[2020-04-21 18:58:52] - -Daniel
[2020-04-21 18:58:49] - a: Any idea why https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-250gb/p/N82E16820147689 is so much more $ than https://www.newegg.com/crucial-250gb-p2/p/N82E16820156244?
[2020-04-21 18:53:09] - Pierce: and (2) frivolous lawsuits do happen outside of COVID-19 right now. I assume where we disagree is: (A) There would also be frivolous COVID-19 related lawsuits and (B) These frivolous lawsuits (COVID-19 or otherwise) are not a significant burden to companies. Does that sound accurate? -Paul
[2020-04-21 18:51:36] - Pierce: Okay, so just to make sure we're on the same page, do we agree that: (1) Decisions based on COVID-19 re-openings for businesses are unlikely to be black-and-white "stupid malicious decision" vs "clearly unassailably right decision" and is more likely to be a shade of grey that will garner some criticism (from different ides) no matter what... -Paul
[2020-04-21 18:43:39] - daniel: "so some more static storage was a bonus in my head" right and i would have agreed with you in 2010. but in 2020 m2s are just so cheap. i mean, look at your current ssd choice. $40 for a non m2 .25tb and $40 for a super slow spinning disk. change that to a 1tb m2 for like $80 or $100. same(ish) amount of space and cost and *waaaaay* faster. ~a
[2020-04-21 18:42:03] - I think I'd be looking for evidence that frivolous lawsuits are a major burden to businesses in a similar scenario, rather than taking at face value both that tort reform is necessary somewhere, and therefore that frivolous lawsuits will be a problem here that exceeds the concern (already demonstrated) that businesses want to open prematurely. - pierce
[2020-04-21 18:40:54] - and they're not making a long series of individual technical decisions specific to Joe Pinkslip that can each be questioned, they're (presumably) making broad policy changes and firing individuals who violate them. if they're caught being malicious that's a different story but I doubt many businesses would be openly malicious (just cynical). - pierce
[2020-04-21 18:40:06] - but a business owner isn't expected to have that medical expertise; if they're following official guidance or public consensus about whether it's safe to reopen, then it's going to be hard to convince a jury that they should've been the only ones still expecting their employees to isolate. - pierce
[2020-04-21 18:39:09] - paul: "our current experience as a country" and "tort reform" are awfully broad, I think you'd need to be more specific about why you think it'd apply to this situation. medical malpractice, for example, is probably the nexus of "tort reform" concerns, but you have medical professionals making multiple specific decisions that are unique to a patient. lots of chances to make some mistake that can be challenged in court. - pierce
[2020-04-21 18:38:32] - a: I'll look at the m2 sdd dealio, that wasn't something I knew to be checking on. I could drop out the HDD but she records a fair amount of kid videos and things so some more static storage was a bonus in my head. Maybe just more SDD though. I don't think she needs a lot of RAM. She plays some games with me but kind of depends - she played through Divinity Original Sin 1&2 with me. Currently playing stardew valley. -Daniel
[2020-04-21 18:23:10] - daniel: actually, i have a new "biggest" problem! ssd have now mostly moved to m2. you don't have an m2 ssd. your motherboard supports m2 (and i see an m2 in all of the screenshots of your motherboard), i think that's what you want. m2s are orders of magnitude faster than the old ssds (which are orders of magnitude faster than spinning disks). ~a
[2020-04-21 18:20:37] - Daniel: Will Andrea join us in SC2 when she gets her new computer?
-Paul[2020-04-21 18:18:46] - daniel: that graph at the bottom is really cool. ~a
[2020-04-21 18:14:30] - Paul: CFR definitely not. IFR it would depend on the methodology. I'm going to guess no, most of the time at least. -- Xpovos
[2020-04-21 18:12:43] - paul: yes. upvote. but they're anonymous. nobody will see you've done it. also you can change your mind by clicking it again (or clicking the "downvote") ~a
[2020-04-21 18:11:39] - daniel: what kind of use is andrea going to have on her desktop? i see "windows 10", but like what applications? office mostly? games of any kind? photoshop? pandora that sort of thing? biggest problem i see is storage. i'd change the ssd to 1tb, and drop out the spinning storage: they're just dumb in 2020 (*imo*). i also think memory is too small: $36 on memory seems too low to me, but also 8gb seems too low. ~a
[2020-04-21 18:11:07] - Xpovos: Do those unofficial deaths count towards CFR metrics? IFR? -Paul
[2020-04-21 18:10:23] - a: If I wanted to give the equivalent of a Facebook "like" in reddit, do I just click on that pretty up arrow? -Paul
[2020-04-21 18:09:56] - Pierce: Even if 99% of them get thrown out, what if that other 1% leads to million dollar lawsuits? That still seems like a problem. Juries don't always reach the "right" (in my opinion, obviously) verdict. -Paul
[2020-04-21 18:09:04] - Pierce: I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying we're unlikely to see frivolous lawsuits because they don't make sense economically? Because I think our current experience as a country speaks otherwise. Isn't that the whole point of tort reform? That we're seeing too many frivolous lawsuits which are clogging up the system and costing companies and customers lots of money to pad the pockets of lawyers? -Paul
[2020-04-21 18:05:45] - mig: the ideas behind reactive streams (i.e. rxjava) were included into java standard, i.e. List.stream() and Set.stream() etc (really Collection.stream()). project reactor is basically the same thing? ~a
[2020-04-21 17:51:17] - Paul: No, probably not (seeing deaths attributed to COVID19 retroactively) except in very limited circumstances. You'll see things like an official death count and then a footnote (was likely significantly higher, estimates range from x to y) similar to how we have official death counts of things like The Great Leap Forward, and then unofficial estimates show that the likely death toll was millions more. -- Xpovos
[2020-04-21 17:23:59] - anyone has done work with Project Reactor? I've been exposed to code that uses it for about a year and a lot of it still feels like black magic to me. - mig
[2020-04-21 17:09:47] - i agree. ~a
[2020-04-21 16:29:59] - a: you were probably being glib. but yeah, society wouldn't have standing in these lawsuits, but it should be considered in policy decisions like "should we shield companies that make this risky decision" - pierce
[2020-04-21 16:25:13] - https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ZpJnK4 Thoughts on a computer build for computer for Andrea? The PSU and GPU would be inherited from my computer cause I might get a new graphcis card and upgrade my PSU. -Daniel
[2020-04-21 16:20:59] - society doesn't have standing. ~a
[2020-04-21 16:15:26] - last comment in this rant... all that calculus is just if you're considering the balance between a company's interest and its employee's interest. but society bears some of the risk from a company's decision to open prematurely, because it will prolong and intensify the pandemic if their employees get sick and infect others outside the office. - pierce
[2020-04-21 16:11:41] - it boils down to incentives. I think it's pretty unlikely that individual lawsuits in bad faith have a payoff that makes them worth the effort, even among those who can afford the legal fees in the first place. but I think there's a huge incentive (as there frequentlyis) for companies to profit by exposing their workers to avoidable risk. especially since the decision-makers can often still WFH and don't bear as much of that risk. - pierce
[2020-04-21 16:01:18] - whereas, again, there's evidence that companies want to reopen even while acknowledging that there's significant risk still ahead of us. - pierce
[2020-04-21 15:59:49] - paul: so if you don't think anybody is advocating that extreme a position, why do you think there would be a lot of people trying to sue on that basis? why do you think a jury would be likely to find against the company for reopening, if the consensus is that the risky period is behind us? - pierce
[2020-04-21 15:56:24] - they lost their job, they'd have to show that it's just because they stayed home due to covid fears (hope they've never had a blemish on their employee record!), they'd have to successfully argue that those fears are still valid (which would suggest that the company was being reckless), the damages would need to offset the legal fees and the time spent unemployed, and they'd have to wait through the appeals process - pierce
[2020-04-21 15:52:32] - Pierce: Well, it's a trade-off, right? I don't know if anybody is advocating waiting to re-open until the chance of workers dying is zero. I think most reasonable estimates are that we will be trading off a certain number of infections/deaths for economic harm. -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:50:38] - a: I have no idea, but in my example it's pretty easy to show concrete damages, right? They lost their job. -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:50:05] - Pierce: I think the line between those two is likely to a shade of grey and not black and white at all, as evidenced by a lot of the discussion going on now about when is the right time to "re-open the country". -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:48:37] - meanwhile... "'Businesses say they keep their workplaces safe,' Roll Call noted, 'but the memo indicates that major corporations privately acknowledge that many so-called essential employees will get sick or die.'"... despite that acknowledgement, the CoC is lobbying in favor of reopening companies and shielding them. so there's evidence that many businesses are fine with knowingly opening prematurely. - pierce
[2020-04-21 15:44:28] - I suspect the number of bad-faith lawsuits would be vanishingly small; how many people would risk the time and money of a lawsuit, on an issue where the law isn't obviously on their side, where their case would be undermined by any evidence that they'd left their house unnecessarily, and where they're unlikely to get a big payout (since punitive damages seem like a hard sell) - pierce
[2020-04-21 15:38:31] - paul: i know any lawsuits are allowed, but aren't lawsuits that aren't thrown out required to show concrete+literal damages? ~a
[2020-04-21 15:37:19] - which outcome do you think is more likely/more significant? individuals suing their employer because they refuse to come to work even after things become (relatively) safe? or companies reopening prematurely because their leadership is more concerned about the profitability than their employees' safety (or worse, the leadership is in the "covid is a hoax" camp)? - pierce
[2020-04-21 15:29:34] - a: Oh, I dunno, like somebody suing Amazon because they didn't come in to work for the past 2 months because they were afraid of COVID-19. -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:25:02] - paul: dumb how. ~a
[2020-04-21 15:24:38] - a: Isn't that the same direction? Either way, I don't see the need for a blanket law here, but I also suspect that a lot of these lawsuits are probably going to be (in my mind) dumb. -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:18:08] - nah, it would be a blanket law but in the other direction. all lawsuits about covid19 would get thrown out. ~a
[2020-04-21 15:16:42] - a: Like, this seems like the type of situation where things should be looked at on a case by case basis instead of having a blanket law. -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:16:09] - a: So, how does this work? Congress passes a law which says certain types of companies can't be sued for certain things? It seems like in an ideal libertarian world, these types of laws wouldn't exist and technically anybody could be sued over anything but the stupid lawsuits would be thrown out by the courts. Also, tort reform. -Paul
[2020-04-21 15:08:34] - should companies be shielded from legal liability of exposing workers to viruses. thoughts? something along the lines of . . . if you don't like what your company is doing, you can always leave? ~a
[2020-04-21 14:40:31] - a: Yeah, I know, I feel badly about that. Thanks. -Paul
[2020-04-21 14:26:41] - also, another thing it's good to be is timely (this is true about twitter i'm sure). they did take a day to reply, and you took another day to reply, which is totally fine. but honestly most conversations die out much earlier than that. usually, in 8-12 hours everybody has moved on. ~a
[2020-04-21 14:23:24] - a: Yeah, I wasn't trying to hide it.
Okay, so if I do it right, my response should be a thread on Steve's reply, and then I have another 3rd level reply to Simon. Thanks. -Paul[2020-04-21 14:21:37] - and before you ask, steve wasn't a coincidence, i found your thread.
~a[2020-04-21 14:21:06] - paul: no it doesn't. i get your question now. no, it's nothing like facebook or twitter. things are indefinitely threaded. you'd reply to each person. *another* option is you reply to one person and link it from the other, but that's not really appropriate in this case. you could say something like "as i touched on with steve, blah blah blah." ~a
[2020-04-21 14:19:21] - a: Uh... let me rephrase: Does the threaded conversation only go one level deep? Like, there's my question, and then every response is just one level below with no sub-levels below that? -Paul
[2020-04-21 14:16:58] - paul: generally you'll put a post in the thread so everybody can read it. it's the same as *any* threaded conversation, though, this seems like a weird question to ask. reply to each of them separately. *sometimes* people put an "edit" into the original if you have like hundreds of replies all asking/saying the same thing. or, you can direct-message someone, but that's even less common. ~a
[2020-04-21 14:14:58] - paul: i agree google as a whole doesn't care about google finance. that doesn't mean they don't have 1 guy on staff who's job it is to make sure the numbers are correct. he could so easily have an email sent to him every time there's an obviously-wrong number. ~a
[2020-04-21 14:14:38] - So, another stupid question on Reddit: Is there a way to "reply" directly to somebody? Or do I just have to put another post in the thread? I asked a question and two people replied and I don't know how to reply to their reply, essentially. -Paul
[2020-04-21 14:13:49] - a: At least for Google, I don't think they care much about Google Finance. CNBC, I agree, should maybe have more effort put into it. -Paul
[2020-04-21 14:13:07] - Pierce: Like, take advantage of low mortgage rates to buy some abandoned warehouse somewhere and "buy" all of these oil contracts and store it there for a few months. -Paul
[2020-04-21 14:13:05] - paul: i know, but i feel like an algorithm would be able to pick out, like the top 5 most-likely-incorrect data-points and be right most of the time. that applies to cnbc or google finance. it would cost them relatively nothing (compared next to their ad-revenue). ~a
prev <-> next