prev <-> next
[2020-06-28 18:38:15] - it's just always like, "oh no! i was sleeping in my quarters at the time, i don't have an alibi!" or "gosh nobody can POSSIBLY see what's going on inside the holodeck!" or "gosh, they could have disappeared at any time in the past 12 hours! nobody knows!" all these... weird immersion breaking ambiguities that could be fixed with 1970s-era video surveillance technology - aaron
[2020-06-28 18:36:37] - "wow, Deanna Troy is missing! did anybody see what happens to her" "uhh well, yeah. she was in ten forward at the time, where there's like -- twenty cameras, obviously. some guy made her touch a weird golden bowl and then the two of them disappeared in a puff of purple smoke" - aaron
[2020-06-28 18:34:03] - paul: so, after finishing TNG by the way -- i liked that they took a stab at explaining the whole "most aliens are humanoid" thing. the one thing that they never explain though, is why out of like 200 crazy phenomena on the enterprise, not ONCE did they have one that was like... - aaron
[2020-06-28 05:20:28] - mig: A burr grinder might go further than any maker. Being able to grind your own beans keeps the coffee fresher longer and gives you more control over the coffee strength (corser or finer grinds). A high quality one also basically lasts forever. We got one when we got married and have used it essentially daily. We had to replace a part last year, but it's still grinding. -- Xpovos
[2020-06-27 23:43:50] - mostly coffee for her. - mig
[2020-06-27 22:15:54] - Andrea drinks coffee a lot but its a hard thing to say without knowing more what Michelle likes. Andrea did a keruig but got annoyed at the expense and the trash of having to deal with the cups. She just does a super basic coffee maker now but grinds her own coffee from beans. -Daniel
[2020-06-27 21:08:47] - mig: Nespresso brews espresso shots essentially instead of a cup of coffee which is more concentrated. Both machines have custom cups/pods used for brewing. It really depends on how she drinks her coffee. The Nespresso generally comes with a milk foamer as well since most espresso drinks involve hot milk of some sort. ~g
[2020-06-27 21:07:21] - mig: Keurig is good for brewing coffee by the cup, if she prefers straight up coffee. If she likes espresso drinks better than the nespresso is your better bet. ~g
[2020-06-27 21:06:23] - mig: hi, paul sent me... ~g
[2020-06-27 20:10:00] - mig: Gurkie has a nespresso and seems to like it, but I don't know much about coffee either. -Paul
[2020-06-27 18:48:34] - you *can* buy a refillable k-cup (that's what my parents use), but again, i've never owned one. ~a
[2020-06-27 18:48:04] - ah. i don't have much info there. i've never owned one, sorry! i know some people are moving away from the k-cups because they produce huge amounts of waste. (event the k-cup creator has said stuff about that) ~a
[2020-06-27 18:41:23] - She does mention keruig a lot, which i'm familiar with the brand name, the specifics not so much. - mig
[2020-06-27 18:40:45] - michelle's birthday is coming up and I want to get her a coffee machine, but I'm not very knowledable on such matters. - mig
[2020-06-27 15:44:47] - i like coffee. i drink it every morning. ~a
[2020-06-27 06:55:03] - coffee? like the drink? ~a
[2020-06-27 02:04:20] - any coffee people here? i need a consultation asap. - mig
[2020-06-26 19:33:46] - paul: that's 17% per year. good luck!
~a[2020-06-26 19:03:52] - paul: i added it to the list. ~a
[2020-06-26 19:00:37] - wait, no. $20. whew! ~a
[2020-06-26 19:00:13] - paul: if i lose, that's a $200 bet
minimum. ~a[2020-06-26 18:46:13] - a: Sure. -Paul
[2020-06-26 18:43:59] - 's wrong for Whole Foods to send those people home? -Paul
[2020-06-26 18:43:48] - Daniel: So you're saying you think it
[2020-06-26 18:43:04] - Daniel: Like, in one sense companies are pressured to get rid of people for saying something and on the other side they getting pressured to permit people to say something (while on company time). -Paul
[2020-06-26 18:41:43] - Daniel: Uh, sure, the King's play-by-play guy but I guess I also mean the general sense that it's so wrong to say "All Lives Matter" that most companies want to disassociate themselves with people who say it, while "Black Lives Matter" is kinda the opposite side of the coin where a company is getting in trouble for NOT permitting somebody to express it. -Paul
[2020-06-26 18:22:54] - paul: ok, i'll take the under. 1k bits? (0.001 btc?) ~a
[2020-06-26 18:22:37] - Paul: I think in terms of whole foods I think its within their power to do so (send the people home) but it probably falls into the 'wrong' camp for me. I think if Whole Foods was just trying to stay out of the whole deal that would be less wrong? Maybe? But since they already have the pro BLM stance as a corp then not letting people wear the masks seems more wrong to me. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 18:21:01] - Paul: You referring the kings play by play guy? I think there is a difference between him and anyone saying 'all lives matter'. Lots of people say that and don't get fired. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 17:10:46] - Do you think that it's right for somebody to be fired for saying "All Lives Matter" while at the same time a grocery store chain is being pressured to let their employees wear facemasks saying "Black Lives Matter"? -Paul
[2020-06-26 17:10:04] - https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/25/business/whole-foods-workers-sent-home-wearing-black-lives-matter-masks/ I don't want to get drawn into a huge thing over this, but I am legitimately interested in hearing what people here think about this not in a legal sense, but your own person sense of right and wrong... -Paul
[2020-06-26 17:08:57] - a: I guess the over? -Paul
[2020-06-26 17:08:49] - https://beth.technology/stacking-satoshis/ "With Square’s cash app reporting fifty percent of its payments being made in bitcoin" It's a little unclear exactly what that means, but I found it relevant-ish to the discussion. -Paul
[2020-06-26 17:00:59] - which side are you on? ~a
[2020-06-26 17:00:43] - a: $20k in 5 years? -Paul
[2020-06-26 16:45:09] - no. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:44:59] - a: You'll bet against me no matter what?
-Paul[2020-06-26 16:27:29] - paul: i don't think daniel is down to bet you on the price of bitcoin. i'll bet against you. do you have a proposal? ~a
[2020-06-26 16:27:21] - daniel: i get it. mission accomplished is how i see it too. i know what you're talking about regarding "presentation". i've seen it too, and i don't buy it. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:26:42] - -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:26:40] - Have a meeting now though!
[2020-06-26 16:26:32] - a: I think it just depends on what the goal of bitcoin (crypto) is. If the idea is to be a niche thing then mission accomplished. However I don't think thats how I've seen it presented. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:25:08] - daniel: i still think you're only looking at one (huge) benefit of bitcoin. there are like dozens. no need to get down on only one of the benefits. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:24:01] - If the goal of bitcoin is to be a weird equivalent to digital gold then I think thats currently achieved but could be fickle if sentiment changes and a different tech becomes the most popular. If the goal is to be currency then I think its debatable. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:23:12] - daniel: its like visa, but anybody can do it. you don't have to be a financial institution. you just have to be "trusted". and again, you're suggesting that this option is a requirement. if bitpay stops being trusted, anybody can compete with them. you don't have to be "in" the regulatory captured system. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:21:32] - Is bitpay just performing the function of visa at that point though? -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:20:35] - Looking through things that do Newegg seems the closest but it looked like they used bitpay where they still get paid in $ but you pay bitpay in bitcoin. Does that count? Maybe? -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:19:39] - Sure - I don't think you can't use it just that it doesn't seem like most places actually take it. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:16:18] - daniel: according to my bitcoin.csv historical bitcoin transactions, i've made 1200+ transactions in the last 8 years. all of those were to "places" and "people". many (most?) of them were not "trusted third parties". i'm sure you'd downplay those 1200+ transactions as mostly trivial or "not true transactions". but i stand by that those 1200+ transactions were worth something to me. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:11:25] - a: I didn't see many places (in my short googling) that natively accepted bitcoin. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:09:09] - you're suggesting that this option is a requirement. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:08:08] - well: 1. you don't *have* to go through a trusted third party. 2. that trusted third party can be literally anyone in the world, it doesn't have to be a specific set of people. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:07:01] - From a quick search (not super long) it looks like not a lot natively accepts bitcoin / crypto payments but rather going through things like bitpay or other intermediary services. I don't know if that counts in my head but maybe? Seems like the point of crypto gets fuzzy if you have to go through a trusted third party in order to actually have the payment processed. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 16:06:52] - "I'm not sure it ceded that it would never be used in physical transactions from the get go" i agree it never ceded that. ~a
[2020-06-26 16:05:01] - a: Eh. Maybe. I'm not sure that means that but maybe. There was a lot touting just scanning QR codes and stuff once upon a time at Subways or gas stations or wherever in order to pay for stuff. Its always going to be online because its digital but I'm not sure it ceded that it would never be used in physical transactions from the get go. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 15:58:59] - very first sentence: "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" link ~a
[2020-06-26 15:56:34] - daniel: the original whitepaper (2008-10-31) specifically focuses on online payments. local gas stations and random restaurants are not online payments. if you want to make a bet that i (and paul?) will accept it should probably focus on online payments. ~a
[2020-06-26 15:53:44] - I have no idea what the value of it will be in the future. That could go all over the place. I would more bet something like it definitely won't be used widely as a currency in things like local gas stations or random restaurants. I feel like the transition to 'store of value' is bitcoin admiting defeat some on its original goal of digital currency. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 15:49:21] - paul: i'm down, but you should bet against daniel. maybe i can get on the same-side as the bet (3-way-bet?!?!) ~a
[2020-06-26 15:47:36] - Anybody interested in a bet on where bitcoin is (relative to USD) in 5 years? -Paul
[2020-06-26 15:47:11] - a: I think it probably doesn't go away but might if another thing comes along that is better. Tech is rarely stagnant and saying that bitcoin will be the dominant crypto forever seems like a stretch to me. However I do think there is a niche for those that want psuedo anonymous censorship resistant currency transfer so I don't think crypto goes away (though I do think it remains a niche thing). -Daniel
[2020-06-26 15:43:57] - daniel: i do NOT hope bitcoin will change the world anymore than it already has. i do hope it doesn't die out and i'm betting lots of value that it won't. ~a
[2020-06-26 15:41:58] - daniel: yay. ~a
[2020-06-26 15:41:48] - I think its hard to argue then that it won't be A store of value since to some degree it already is. So I suppose success! -Daniel
[2020-06-26 15:39:43] - daniel: i know this is maybe what the article said, but i disagree: i don't think bitcoin will become *THE* new global store of value. i don't think there ever has been a *the* global store of value. there has always been dozens. ~a
[2020-06-26 15:38:21] - So while I admit that I could be wrong and that if Bitcoin continues to grow perhaps hits a tipping point in the future and becomes our new global store of value or whatever I don't see it happening. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 15:37:43] - I read (maybe skimmed is more honest) the article. It didn't do much to convince me on the prospects of bitcoin going forward. /shrug. I don't think Bitcoin solves a problem that a majority of people care about and in fact creates problems and issues that they normally don't have to deal with. -Daniel
[2020-06-26 15:12:22] - a: Oh, oh! Sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, one is a linear scale and the other is logarithmic? Okay, yes, then that is dumb. I didn't realize that at first. -Paul
[2020-06-26 15:10:03] - paul: and i'm sorry if i'm sensitive about this, but "bitcoin traders" and stock market "technical analysis" experts just piss me off. it's the whole global average temperature to pirates graph thing: they find a "thing" that's based on nothing, and "show" it with a graph like this. ~a
[2020-06-26 15:09:11] - paul: one's growing asymptotically and the other is growing exponentially. which is fine for you to say, but dumb to present in a single graph in this way. maybe graph it with X-vs-Y, or with two Y-scale graphs next to each-other, instead. if you put them on one graph and align the Y-scales *arbitrarily*, you can pretty much "show" anything you want! ~a
[2020-06-26 15:03:38] - a: Yeah, I get why you don't like the graph, and it does basically just say that they are both... what, growing exponentially-ish? I did like the idea of comparing the price of BTC to the supply. -Paul
[2020-06-26 14:56:29] - paul: yes, i think that's an interesting read as well. hopefully we get daniel's take on it. he seems to be the most vocally anti-bitcoin person here. (i personally hate the "bitcoin asymptotic money supply targeting" graph. any time you *arbitrarily* align two unrelated Y-scales on a graph, with different-units no less, i'll hate your graph) ~a
[2020-06-26 14:49:44] - a: I don't know if they hold grudges, but I have to imagine some level of "trust-worthiness" has to come into play. -Paul
[2020-06-26 14:49:06] - https://ark-invest.com/analyst-research/bitcoin-myths/ I thought this was an interesting read on bitcoin, and not too long. -Paul
[2020-06-26 14:44:45] - lol
[2020-06-26 14:36:47] - also you could definitely program in grudges. hell, you could even give them information between games (miguel will always back-stab adrian). ~a
[2020-06-26 14:35:48] - yeah i was also considering grudges and retribution, but then i was thinking: expert level diplomacy players . . . do *they* hold grudges and participate in retribution? i'm not sure. ~a
[2020-06-26 14:33:46] - And I wonder how that would work if you throw humans into the mix (who might hold grudges that AIs don't). -Paul
[2020-06-26 14:33:30] - aaaron: I wonder if there could be a "Alpha Go" type AI right now that could train itself to play games of Diplomacy that not only considers all the moves, but also all the types of communications that are possible from different players. -Paul
[2020-06-26 14:31:41] - aaron: ah yes i think i understand. now how to make such an ai completely blows my mind. with my solver, i think maybe each communication would be considered a "move" that doesn't change the game state. or, i guess, part of the game-state is everybody else's intentions, which includes a ton of uncertainty. the thing about diplomacy is the ai would only assume someone will probably do what they say, when it helps them personally. ~a
[2020-06-26 04:36:32] - (and then, england would move into the channel anyways
) - aaron[2020-06-26 04:36:19] - a: it would send different lists to each player, either telegraphing their own moves, lying about their own moves, or suggesting moves for their opponents. so like in Spring 1901 england might send a message to france which shows them both bouncing in the channel, and France would send back a message with England instead moving into the north sea, and England would then send the same message back to france as a way of saying "OK" - aaron
[2020-06-25 22:58:00] - Aaron: interesting. I assume you're serious. Would it send that list to everybody? Or would it send a (potentially different) list to each player? ~a
[2020-06-25 20:38:01] - paul: if i were writing a diplomacy AI and i wanted it to communicate, i'd just have every message it sends/receives be a list of 50-60 orders for countries. that's the easiest thing. human beings could get pretty far that way too - aaron
[2020-06-25 20:32:25] - *whispers to Paul* hey paul I need you to help me invade this other guy Paul. Don't worry it will be great for both of us! -Daniel
[2020-06-25 20:31:33] - 1v1! What could go wrong?! -Daniel
[2020-06-25 20:29:20] - As always, I am game. -Paul
[2020-06-25 20:08:47] - Based on in depth five minutes of googling https://www.backstabbr.com/ looks like a candidate. -Daniel
[2020-06-25 20:00:46] - Yeah online. We could find a new one. Pretty sure there are several. /shrug -Daniel
[2020-06-25 19:58:23] - Daniel: Presumably online instead of in person? I think the website we used previously is no longer around? -Paul
[2020-06-25 19:52:57] - Paul: usually everybody is against me. Seriously, though I wasn't sure how to handle communication. also, my solver was very analytical. It didn't yet understand uncertainty (but I think I know how to add uncertainty in). ~a
[2020-06-25 19:48:12] - We should still try to get another game together some day. -Daniel
[2020-06-25 19:32:50] - a: I find it amusing that your approach to Diplomacy assumes everybody is allied against you.
-Paul[2020-06-25 19:09:40] - paul/aaron: when i tried to do the same thing with my gamesolver, i ignored communication. i was just looking for the best move assuming everybody was against me, and in the end i was planning to use that move as informational only (i.e. not a true AI). my next plan was to make more than one player work together 100% (and, again assume every other player would play against them) but i never got that far. ~a
[2020-06-25 19:07:32] - aaron: Nice! I wonder how they'll get around the communication issue. Maybe I should read to find out.
-Paul[2020-06-25 18:25:07] - https://www.techrepublic.com/article/deepmind-sets-ai-loose-on-diplomacy-board-game-and-collaboration-is-key/ they're trying to teach deepmind to play diplomacy - aaron
[2020-06-25 15:52:59] - paul: ok, gotcha. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:52:51] - a: Past tense. -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:52:40] - a: Yup. I understand your confusion. I'm saying I know why you think it's high. The evidence is kinda in your favor (it was in your favor back then and continues to be in your favor now). I probably wouldn't make that bet again right now because it is looking like I might end up being wrong. -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:52:13] - "hiding" present tense? or past tense? now, we're testing ~10% of the population every ~2 months. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:51:20] - a: Honestly, if anything, my bet was on the inadequacy of our testing hiding the fact that more Americans might have COVID-19 than we suspected, which would increase the denominator and bring the CFR down. -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:51:09] - paul: "I mentioned that we're at 5% now to say that it's completely reasonable to have thought that the CFR would be well above 1%." uhh aren't you arguing that the CFR is low? i understand ~90% of your last message, please try again? ~a
[2020-06-25 15:48:26] - a: I've been meaning deadly as in how often it kills people who catch it. Part of my theory was more people had it than we knew, so the infection rate was higher. I also didn't know about IFR. I mentioned that we're at 5% now to say that it's completely reasonable to have thought that the CFR would be well above 1%. -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:39:52] - paul: . . . were you talking about the 0.5%? 0.5% != 5%. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:37:55] - "even now, aren't we at 5%?" i don't follow your point. yes, now we're at 5%. (what does this mean?) ~a
[2020-06-25 15:34:59] - paul: "deadly" has multiple meanings. it's been much more "deadly" (in total number of deaths) than i thought it would be. but yeah, in march, i thought the cfr was going to be somewhere between 1.25% and 5%. i think the huge range there was because i didn't know about ifr, and wasn't sure exactly how we'd figure out how many non-symptomatic people there were, and even how many symptomatic people don't go to the hospital. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:29:47] - a: And to your point, even now, aren't we at 5%? -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:29:34] - a: But at the time we were talking, you thought the CFR was going to be like 4% or something, right? -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:26:52] - paul: by december, we'll know more. the number of cases and the number of (symptomatic) infections will be very close to each-other. we'll be able to look at the (non-cumulative) cfr, and see if there's 0.5%, or 0.2%, or something much higher. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:21:10] - paul: it's more deadly than fox-news thought it would be. but it's also more deadly than i thought it would be. and based on the 0.2% number that we got from your article, i think it's also more deadly than you thought it would be. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:20:16] - paul: i convinced myself that the virginia deaths would be ~1,000. maybe a little higher. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:19:21] - paul: ah, ok. well in early march i was thinking this would be a 30-day thing. so it's more deadly than even i feared. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:18:25] - a: Yeah, I guess we need to define "we" there. I meant like the message board people and the epidemiologists.
-Paul[2020-06-25 15:17:38] - https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/04/the-true-cfr-of-the-coronavirus-may-be-0-5-or-less/ From the other side of the political spectrum (although this article is two months old). -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:17:06] - paul: "we all realize that COVID-19 was a lot less deadly than initially feared" i couldn't disagree with this sentiment more. like 40% of america isn't and wasn't worried about covid at all. fox-news beat the drum that this was a nothing burger in february and on. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:15:46] - a: that's way higher than i expected. that many people want to be tested?? gurkie told me that the doctors do the total recall nose thing to you until you cry. maybe if she told everyone else about that, fewer people would get the test - aaron
[2020-06-25 15:15:26] - a: But this all got kicked off by an article I shared which specifically said CFR, so CFR is what we used (and should use). I know I am probably losing this bet, but I have been seeing more sources that seem to be backing up the idea that the CFR of COVID-19 is under 1%. -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:14:18] - a: To be clear, I never said COVID-19 wasn't dangerous, and I find it funny that this is ascribed to me considering that by my actions, I seem to be one of the more conservative people I know in terms of social distancing (most people I know have started venturing out and such). -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:13:37] - aaron: we're currently testing .5m people every day. that's like basically 10% of the population every few months. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:12:44] - this is from early may, and it agrees with you. i'm not sure if this hasn't been updated. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:12:25] - and that sort of guidance makes covid seem more dangerous (the CFR is over 5%!) but also makes it seems less dangerous (only 2.43 million cases? that's hardly anybody) - aaron
[2020-06-25 15:12:18] - a: I think that wording is wrong, btw. I am taking the under, right? -Paul
[2020-06-25 15:11:50] - aaron: is that still true in june? testing in june is really high. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:11:03] - i agree covid is dangerous but i also paul's objection that the bet isn't quite what he meant. for example if i become symptomatic i have no plans to get tested or go to the hospital unless i start having serious respiratory problems. i actually think to an extent, this might actually align with CDC guidance - aaron
[2020-06-25 15:10:24] - on the other hand, i'd be fine with a "push" since we said cfr, but probably meant ifr. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:06:59] - aaron: if the spirit of the bet is: covid is dangerous or covid is not dangerous, i think *dangerous* has been borne out so far. so i'm fine winning this bet
~a[2020-06-25 15:05:19] - aaron: take the official covid death count and divide by the official case count. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:04:43] - aaron: closer to the last one. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:04:32] - or rather, i guess -- for every 10,000 people who go to the hospital...? - aaron
[2020-06-25 15:04:21] - and a "cumulative CFR of 1.25%" means that for every 10,000 people infected, 125 people die? - aaron
[2020-06-25 15:03:08] - aaron: maybe the reason paul's complaining (here, i agree with paul) is that the wording of the bet implies that we should be looking at the ifr, not the cfr. but back when we wrote this, we didn't know what an ifr was, so we said cfr. the cumulative cfr for 2020 will likely never reach 1.25% even if we get a cure. ~a
[2020-06-25 15:01:34] - aaron: "paul takes the over on the cfr in the united states for covid-19 is 1.25% for the year of 2020 assuming we have a reliable way to calculate it by 2020-12-31" ~a
[2020-06-25 15:01:07] - what was the bet? over/under on a 5% case fatality rate for COVID-19 in 2020? - aaron
[2020-06-25 14:36:17] - a: But it's relative to what we initially feared. People were talking about millions of dead and being hundreds of times deadlier than the flu and yes, lots of people will have died, but I think those earlier fears are turning out to be unfounded. -Paul
[2020-06-25 14:26:55] - paul: i was with you until this part: "we all realize that COVID-19 was a lot less deadly than initially feared". this will never happen even if we magic-cure it tomorrow. we've lost more people than we did in ww1. or the korean war and vietnam war and revolutionary war combined. there is still no end in sight: rate is currently at a new war every few months. (you had posted an article that argued the cfr was 0.2%. 0.2%) ~a
[2020-06-25 13:38:14] - a: Having said that, I could easily see a scenario where I lose this bet but feel like I kinda win the argument in that the CFR ends up being like 2% for 2020 but we all realize that COVID-19 was a lot less deadly than initially feared. -Paul
[2020-06-25 13:37:25] - a: What does the section under "Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio" mean, then? The spirit of the bet was for all of 2020 (at least from my end), and although in retrospect I think I was thinking more about IFR than CFR, we definitely said CFR and we should stick to that. -Paul
[2020-06-24 20:32:46] - paul: so, hmmm, probably one big difference, is the timeframe. the bet said for 2020, so we need to look at cumulative. the 2020 cfr is 5%, but if you look at like, mid-june only, it's closer to 2%. so you might get screwed by that. ~a
[2020-06-24 20:22:29] - it is interesting how testing has improved. i was worried in march, but now in june the US is testing something like 15m people (5% of the population) every ~30 days. i think the cases are finally catching up with the symptomatic carriers. ~a
[2020-06-24 20:11:58] - i doubt it. mainly because it's SO far off from what i'm seeing on other websites. for instance, this website says 5% for united states as of today (you have to click on "Case fatality rate" radio option, it's not the default!). this website also says 5% for the united states as of today. ~a
[2020-06-24 19:27:14] - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Am I reading this right that the CDC is now estimating (or maybe modeling is the better term) CFRs between 0.2% and 1.0%? -Paul
[2020-06-24 19:20:21] - ouch, that has got to hurt. imagine 80% of vt or tj saying that they were tired of your shit. i imagine a bunch of those 80% are republicans, or at least non-partisan in their reasoning? wow. ~a
[2020-06-24 16:22:01] - paul: well there is more than one way to interpret the image (postcard?). they're not saying all protests are peaceful? it could be they're telling you to attend a peaceful protest near you. it shouldn't be hard, anyways. most of them in dc have been peaceful. and it's exactly what i've been saying: only attend the peaceful ones. once they stop being peaceful, in my experience it's always easy to leave. ~a
[2020-06-24 16:15:48] - a: Not all protests have been peaceful? -Paul
[2020-06-24 14:58:45] - paul: how so? ~a
[2020-06-24 14:58:34] - a: I would prefer quotes around "peaceful" instead of an underline.
-Paul[2020-06-24 14:48:33] - paul: there, better? ~a
[2020-06-24 14:47:24] - paul: yeah i kinda knew this was going to be the response. i considered removing the title once i realized that's the obvious come-back. ~a
[2020-06-24 14:35:13] - title: Would it surprise you that I remember once grumbling about all the attention breast cancer gets compared to prostate cancer?
-Paul[2020-06-23 23:11:28] - another trump tweet got flagged today. last one was in may. link ~a
[2020-06-23 18:12:40] - I mean sure it might be nice or make for a better story or whatever if it was some diverse group thrown together overcoming adversity! and all all that to make the ringer. But I think the overtime development is a bigger deal than a founding. But thats me. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 18:11:43] - Ah - I just went and read the article not the tweet I guess. I don't know, criticizing a lack of diversity for a founding group of five seems dumb. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 17:50:47] - Daniel: Yeah, Adrian has the answer. It's what the tweet specifically referred to. -Paul
[2020-06-23 17:11:50] - /shrug I guess that would depend on who was involved in the debate in question. Goal post moving certainly happens on all sides in a lot of debates. I think if you can argue that 5 is enough for the ringer that would be satisfactory for me. I think it seems low. I also don't think Simmons needs to be crucified for it since his response was mostly my bad we should do something about that. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 17:11:13] - daniel: i think probably paul focused on founding because of his bill simmons (twitter) link that focused on "founders". ~a
[2020-06-23 17:09:46] - daniel: i suspect i usually get a vague answer to that question so that people can perpetually move the goal posts. - mig
[2020-06-23 17:05:46] - Paul: I don't know why you think the founding matters? A company can become diverse over time no matter the founding? -Daniel
[2020-06-23 17:05:41] - mig: two standard deviations from the mean. ~a
[2020-06-23 17:04:30] - People look at something and make an argument for it. Apparently people are making the argument that 5 is to low for the ringer. 5 does seem like a low number. I don't know what number is "enough". -Daniel
[2020-06-23 17:03:40] - mig: I don't think there is a specific answer to that. What is art? What is porn? What is under representation? I don't know that those have concrete definitions. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 17:01:29] - daniel: what's the correct amount of black people that simmons needs to hire? - mig
[2020-06-23 16:42:25] - paul: i thought some of the cofounders were multiracial. ~a
[2020-06-23 16:41:39] - I know you all don't do twitter much, but man has it seemed like a bloodbath of liberals eating their own lately. Tina Fey, Bill Simmons, Jimmy Kimmel... -Paul
[2020-06-23 16:23:21] - Daniel: But won't it be too late at that point? The founding only happens once. -Paul
[2020-06-23 16:22:48] - I think Simmons is more illustrative of the unconsious bias part that people talk about a lot now adays. Maybe he is secretly racist or something who knows but I think its more likely he just didn't pay attention and ended up with a company with only 5 black people in it. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 16:21:21] - Paul: I think your currently fine
Somewhere along the way to your 200 million spotify deal you might want to think about diversity. -Daniel[2020-06-23 16:20:11] - https://twitter.com/steven_aquino/status/1275289145963732992 *Checks ethnicity of my Rampant Discourse co-founders* .... Shit. -Paul
[2020-06-23 16:16:40] - a: "i'm pretty sure we knew blackface was in poor taste in 1999" Sure, and that's what some (all?) of the humor is based on, right? We're laughing because these characters are doing stuff we know is in bad taste? So is the change that we're no longer allowed to make fun of how blackface is in bad taste? -Paul
[2020-06-23 14:51:44] - Paul: The point is that the attitude shifted over time and didn't spring up in the last five years. Whoopi wasn't in 1993 but the author clearly calls it out. Over time those arguments won out. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 14:51:27] - i'm pretty sure we knew blackface was in poor taste in 1999. tropic thunder was 2008 (12 years ago). those scenes were considered poor taste at the time. ~a
[2020-06-23 14:47:31] - Daniel: So, I don't get it, doesn't that kinda support my point? I mean, 1993 is a long time ago, but the blackface material was written up by Whoopi, so presumably she didn't think it was offensive at the time? -Paul
[2020-06-23 14:46:15] - Daniel: Haha, and now I read your article and realize it covers that. -Paul
[2020-06-23 14:45:31] - Daniel: https://lostmediaarchive.fandom.com/wiki/Ted_Danson_Blackface_Performance_at_Whoopi_Goldberg%27s_Roast_(1993) It's interesting that you bring up Whoopi, because she had a bit of a different history with blackface previously. -Paul
[2020-06-23 14:44:05] - Daniel: I get that some people thought it was bad for longer than 5 years, but as of... I don't know when those 30 Rock episodes aired, but 5-10 years ago, it was acceptable enough to have on network TV. -Paul
[2020-06-23 14:35:16] - I just did a google search for "why is blackface bad" and told google to time box the results. You still get results from way before 2015. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 14:34:36] - Paul: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1993-10-14-1993287040-story.html - Here is a story from 1993 that isn't focused as much on the black face as Whoopi but definitely calls it out. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 14:25:22] - I think its been happening way longer than 5 years. You just might not have known about it. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 14:24:32] - Daniel: "It just happened over time" Yeah, but the time it happened over is like 5 years. That seems crazy quick to me to go from, "This is fine" to "this is so bad we have to go back and no longer show episodes that contain this and people who have done this should be canceled". You don't think so? -Paul
[2020-06-23 14:17:31] - Paul: /shrug its the switch from yes to no. I don't think its super extreme. It just happened over time and eventually hit enough people to be a critical mass. Also pulling from syndication being charactarized as burning in a bonfire seems extreme. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 14:01:45] - Daniel: Sure, "tipping point" is fine, but either way it seems like a pretty extreme switch to where major Hollywood stars like RDJ can do it in a blockbuster film and a show like 30 Rock (Tina Fey is fairly liberal, even if she does a good job poking fun at liberals too) can do it multiple times and now it's grounds for burning those episodes in a bonfire. -Paul
[2020-06-23 13:54:37] - I think partly there was more news / stories / articles on the history of blackface. More people explained a credible case for why its not great and so the idea of "oh its funny" didn't seem to outweigh the other stuff for more people anymore. Where more apparently is enough of a critical mass to effect change. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 13:52:32] - Paul: I'm not sure there is a "turned so" as much as a tipping point eventually where things can change. I'm not sure where the tipping point was but I think even 10 years ago you had people who didn't like it. Like the 'Redskins' - there are already people that don't like it so if in five years the name changes and you ask when did people turn against it the answer would be slowly over the last fifty years or something. -Daniel
[2020-06-23 13:47:32] - https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/30-rock-blackface-episodes-removed-tina-fey-1234645607/ I forgot that 30 Rock had blackface in it. The last episode aired just 7 years ago. When do we think American society turned so against blackface? It's gotta be like within the past 5 years or so, right? -Paul
[2020-06-22 20:40:21] - my guesses would be . . . response? cities have an easier time being swamped by the number of infections each hospital is required to handle? ~a
[2020-06-22 20:38:34] - xpovos: I've heard that the CFR can get skewed a lot by relatively "small" things like a handful of nursing homes just getting ravaged by the disease, so maybe if that happened in DC and not Virginia.... that could explain it? Maybe it's testing? Pure speculation. -Paul
[2020-06-22 20:38:25] - paul: i'm only basing this on the numbers, not logic. cities have a higher CFR and IFR. i can only guess why that is. ~a
[2020-06-22 20:37:35] - a: Why should density matter for CFR, though? It should matter for how fast it spreads, but not necessarily for the deadliness of it, unless DC is "older" or "sicker" or something. -Paul
[2020-06-22 20:33:41] - xpovos: imo, dc is a city. virginia is (mostly) not a city. i think if you compare DC to another city of the same size/density in the united states, you might see more comparable (but still different) numbers? ~a
[2020-06-22 20:29:48] - Paul: One thing about CFR that I've been paying close attention to is jurisdictional differences. I think that might end up being meaningful in the long run. I'm not entirely sure what it means. But here are some stats I've followed. Virginia CFR is roughly half of what DC's CFR is. DC is only slightly above national average. Why is Virginia so low? -- Xpovos
[2020-06-22 20:29:18] - here's hoping those young people won't give it to any old people. that would be unexpected. ~a
[2020-06-22 20:25:45] - paul: i hear you. if lots of young people catch it, and don't die, that will decrease the cfr and the ifr. ~a
[2020-06-22 20:25:17] - daniel: i've been trying to run back-testing on my own, but if you have any links to people who've actually run some back-tested simulations, i'd love to check my work. ~a
[2020-06-22 20:24:25] - a: What math are you doing for your conclusion? I still haven't done any but just googling pretty much everything seems to suggest more than 5% bonds so just wondering what you are doing to get there. -Daniel
[2020-06-22 20:22:40] - a: (Don't let me distract you from your other conversation for now, but I wanted to post this while I had the link available): https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1275061694604115968 Looks like there's still a slim chance I win our CFR bet, if we continue to see a shift of infections to younger people. -Paul
[2020-06-22 20:18:42] - just for reference: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguard_target_retirement_funds#Detailed_fund_allocations -Daniel
[2020-06-22 20:18:36] - a: OK I thought that was more your position but was confused. -Daniel
[2020-06-22 20:16:26] - daniel: no, not at all. each allocation is not a static number, sorry. each "allocation" would be a function. basically like vforx uses, but with lower values. a "bond tent" system (which early retirees often use) is an example of this. you ramp up bonds before retirement, then at retirement you ramp them back down. the specifics of "what" exact percentages to use at what time, is more what i'm getting at. ~a
[2020-06-22 20:13:44] - a: So you'd just have two allocations? Pre retirement and Post? Your post earlier seemed to imply that within a ten year window you would start to increase from 5%? Am I reading things wrong? I thought you were on board with the bond tent idea to some degree but maybe thats wrong? -Daniel
[2020-06-22 20:12:35] - a: Nah, it was a joke, I have no real opinion on the proper bond allocation except to say for me at my point in time I am comfortable with 0. -Paul
[2020-06-22 20:11:48] - More seriously, though, I guess as some point I need to consider not being 100% in equities and how best to handle that given my distaste of bonds. Maybe the Fed could raise interest rates and we could get back to the time of like 14% returns on government treasuries? -Paul
[2020-06-22 20:11:24] - zero, at any age? ~a
[2020-06-22 20:10:54] - Everybody knows the proper bond allocation is 0.
-Paul[2020-06-22 19:57:58] - daniel: imo, the bond allocation before retirement can be ignorant of how long the money will be used for (a target amount is required, and an approximate date is . . . requested). imo, the bond allocation after retirement can NOT be ignorant of how long the money will be used for. ~a
[2020-06-22 19:55:56] - daniel: no, i'm saying the bond percentage before retirement and after retirement can be different. you can change the bond percentage at retirement. ~a
[2020-06-22 19:54:45] - a: I think it definitely matter how long you planning on needing the money. If you need the money for another 50 years I think thats a very different situation than planning for 15 years. One needs to plan for growth much more while the other needs to focus on preservation more. Are you just assuming growth is always the goal? -Daniel
[2020-06-22 19:17:43] - daniel: "retiring early perhaps as you still need more growth since you are looking at a longer time frame" assuming you can change your allocation at retirement, i'm not sure it matters how long you plan on using the money? (i think the only way retiring early would matter, would be if postponing retirement was "easier" or "harder". which it is, but whatevs?) ~a
[2020-06-22 19:15:31] - daniel: "I haven't done any specific math for this" yes i suggest you do this. from what i can tell, bonds don't seem "useful", more than, say 5% percent, until you're like ~10 years out. certainly, random websites on the internet agree with vanguard. even the "new life model" seems to be too conservative. maybe i'm wrong, i dunno. ~a
[2020-06-22 19:09:08] - I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about when to increase the bond portions of my retirement but at some poitn I suppose I should since I'm hopefully within the 20 year window for my retirement. -Daniel
[2020-06-22 19:06:42] - a: I don't think that philosphy melds well with retiring early perhaps as you still need more growth since you are looking at a longer time frame. Also I would say that institutional advice probably skews more conservative, but thats a guess on my part. -Daniel
[2020-06-22 19:05:27] - a: What % bond do you think they should have? Even in there 2065 fund they have 10% bonds. So if that starts to ramp up over time going to ~15% at 20 years to 50% at retirement it doesn't seem crazy to me. I haven't done any specific math for this just thinking about the common wisdom of having bonds and increasing them as you get closer to retirement. -Daniel
[2020-06-22 18:13:17] - daniel: this isn't simply being too conservative for my tastes. it seems to be too conservative for conservatives tastes. some new uber-ultra-conservatism that i can't even imagine being correct. it's like they made a mistake or something. ~a
[2020-06-22 18:12:21] - daniel: i'd like to ask you about vforx (or similar: target date funds). it appears that vanguard uses some dumb math to decide the makeup of these funds. they optimize for the ~0.1% worst-case scenario as far as i can tell, the one-in-a-million case that you plan to retire *after* a huge inflation-event ("before" or "after", actually). vforx = 17% bonds for 20 years away is way off from everything i could possibly calculate. ~a
[2020-06-22 17:09:22] - oh gosh. yeah. for a word? hmm. i think "allowlist" and "denylist" are probably the best alternatives because at least they're short and comprehensible - aaron
[2020-06-22 17:08:47] - 30 years later for the most part it's like, "meh, black's fine" but it was a good sentiment and it got people thinking, and there are still contexts where more PC terms are welcomed so they have their place - aaron
[2020-06-22 17:08:29] - no i mean do you have an alternative suggestion? ~a
[2020-06-22 17:07:41] - a: personally, i'd say -- brainstorm alternatives, start using them yourself, push them on twitter, see if they gain traction, check back again in a few years to see if it still feels pertinent and if the terms feel like they help things. sort of what people did in the 80s with terms like african american - aaron
[2020-06-22 17:05:32] - with the advent of so much written communication being stored and transmitted electronically though, it does bring about an interesting question of the pace of language changes and things which are possible now which weren't possible 50 years ago - aaron
[2020-06-22 17:03:09] - aaron: so . . . back to blacklist and whitelist. what do you suggest? status quo? ~a
[2020-06-22 17:02:36] - aaron: you're right. ~a
[2020-06-22 17:02:18] - manager/worker would probably be the easiest. actually i think 'manager threads' and 'worker threads' are already a term i hear in some software contexts - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:57:45] - a: something which tells something else what to do, or something which is in charge of something else? there's a lot of synonyms for that, pretty much anything from business/management/military could work - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:53:07] - and for the record "byte" was specifically derived from "bite" as an example of what i described -- repurposing an existing english word to communicate better. it's why "nibble" is also a computer term - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:53:02] - aaron: we (computer people) only make up words when other words don't already exist? it's a fair argument, and i don't have any counterexamples yet, but i'm not sure it *has* to be that way, right? maybe just that it's preferred if you aren't literally stepping on someone else to do it? ~a
[2020-06-22 16:51:19] - that's fair, but they'd also come up with "master" and "slave" because those were the best words to use at the time. there are literally no synonyms there either, right? ~a
[2020-06-22 16:51:18] - which is not to say, that word has to stick around -- but i'm just trying to express why it makes sense for software to pioneer words like "metadata" and "byte", but not to decide that an online "Shopping Cart" is now called a "Shmeezle Blorp" - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:50:08] - if you went back to 1970 and said, "what would you call a list of things which I search through, and I reject any stuff that's on that list, because it's not allowed?' they'd say, 'yeah that's called a blacklist.' and not only would they say that, but that's the ONLY thing they'd say because it has like literally no synonym - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:48:32] - a: right, those are cases where real words didn't fit. if you went back to 1970 and said, "what would you call a short word you stick on the end of a bunch of sentences different people say, like 'WW3', so that if people want to search for stuff about a topic, they can search for that word instead?" they'd be like uhhh.. keyword? search word? headline? no, shorter than headline.. neckline? - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:47:33] - aaron: a few more: "daemon", "ping". ~a
[2020-06-22 16:43:57] - entomology geeze. hopefully you knew what i meant there, haha. ~a
[2020-06-22 16:43:29] - aaron: here are a few. i'll try to find more. "hashtag" (entomology says 2007). "metadata". "byte" (stolen from "bite", but was intentionally spelled this way for computers). ~a
[2020-06-22 16:43:20] - a: when software uses made up words, it's because real words don't fit. and when we come up with real words which 90% fit (e.g server, address, menu, window) we repurpose them because communicating with metaphor using inaccurate real-world terms is better than communicating with gibberish using made-up terms - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:40:14] - aaron: well i dunno. should we stop using racist words in "english"? sure. i agree here, but i have less control over that. i like to be the change i see in the world: so i'll vote for making up words any day. ~a
[2020-06-22 16:39:12] - but i feel like it's more logical for english to evolve, and computer software to follow it -- rather than for computer software to make up new made up words and expect the real world to follow suit - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:38:33] - aaron: "for the purposes of communication, one of those is better". i disagree here. i'll try to come up with some examples of made-up words we use constantly. ~a
[2020-06-22 16:37:56] - aaron: i hear you. i was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. i was thinking, aaron likes "whitelist" and "blacklist" because they're actual english words. where "denylist" and "allowlist" aren't. well i'll hit back with this one: half of the shit we use in computers are made-up non-english words. lets make up some words, we do it all the time! ~a
[2020-06-22 16:37:33] - on the other hand if you're talking about saying that the english language uses one set of terms, and computer software uses a different set of terms, that's basically what i'm arguing about. whitelist is an english word dating back to the 17th century, greenlist is an adrian word dating back to 20 minutes ago. for the purposes of communication, one of those is better - aaron
[2020-06-22 16:35:37] - a: are we talking about changing the english language or changing computer software? if you're suggesting changing the english language then sure, i sort of agree that convincing english speakers as a whole that the concept of "blacklist" "whitelist" to use different terms might be helpful, but since those changes are so disruptive and slow-going i think it makes sense to sleep on them for a decade and see what sticks - aaron
[2020-06-22 01:53:46] - mig: Irish? -- Xpovos
[2020-06-22 00:10:55] - redlist is a no go because its probably offensive to native americans. not sure about greenlist but im sure you can find some aggrieved group to claim offense at it. - mig
[2020-06-21 21:12:37] - aaron: how about redlist and greenlist? I'm not sure why white had to be allow and black had to be deny. red and green feel more fitting. ~a
[2020-06-21 03:27:23] - but yeah i agree "master branch" to me is more about "master copy", like the source from which other things are derived so it's inherently less offensive than terms like master/slave in IDE controllers which, yeah, i'm on board with that one. even if the new names are worse those names need to change - aaron
[2020-06-21 03:24:08] - a: also sorry for the late reply -- i wouldn't say i "agree with" changing master/branch to main/branch, as much as i find it unobjectionable because the new names aren't worse than the old names. allow/deny are sort of OK names but they're not as specific as whitelist/blacklist - aaron
[2020-06-21 03:19:41] - https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1463112 cat sitting on keyboard crashes lightdm - aaron
[2020-06-21 02:20:28] - paul: where are all the masks? i saw like 95% (probably more) mask usage at the blm protests in dc a few weeks ago. ~a
[2020-06-20 23:24:51] - a: Heh, those were pretty good. I'm especially fond of the Zap one. -Paul
[2020-06-20 22:42:32] - i found some sc2 memes online and i love it. 1, 2, 3. ~a
[2020-06-20 01:07:39] - mig/paul: yes, some things are happening that you like, and some things are happening that you don't like. ~a
[2020-06-19 20:12:57] - https://reason.com/2020/06/19/colorado-police-reforms-mandate-body-cameras-strip-bad-officers-of-lawsuit-immunity/ Here's some evidence against my point. -Paul
prev <-> next