prev <-> next
[2020-07-06 19:11:14] - a: I only ask because that once again goes back the the "ranking" of groups of people that I keep referring to and swore we discussed before. It goes to the idea of why did Harvard discriminate against Asians and for other minorities? Because Asians don't, for the lack of a better term, rank as high on the oppression/disadvantaged/whatever scale. -Paul
[2020-07-06 19:11:05] - mig: relevant for your link, but also for the overall AA discussion: the number of multiracial/other applicants/admissions is going up. class of 2021 2023 2024. ~a
[2020-07-06 18:59:48] - i don't know. i don't really like AA, so i'll just leave it at that. ~a
[2020-07-06 18:59:03] - a: How would you define protected group? -Paul
[2020-07-06 18:54:07] - I guess my main problem with AA-like policies or advocacy, is that the default impulse whenever there's not the "correct" amount of representation for $X/$Y/$Z is "SYSTEMIC RACISM". - mig
[2020-07-06 18:51:40] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jefferson-high-admissions-diversity/2020/07/01/802fbc02-badb-11ea-80b9-40ece9a701dc_story.html?fbclid=IwAR relevant, i suppose, and of local interest. - mig
[2020-07-06 18:47:13] - btw, 401ks work like this: not in a racial way, but there are a lot of "tests" that you're required to pass to confirm that your 401k is equitable: the government wants to make sure your 401k isn't only benefiting just your C-level employees. ~a
[2020-07-06 18:43:51] - this is just an example though, i feel like a "real" test would be closer to Y%/X% < Z, then fail the test. ~a
[2020-07-06 18:40:53] - daniel: aa regulation probably assesses that using some sort of metric, right? like, for instance, couldn't you design it like this? X% of the applicants (or population?!) are part of a protected group, and Y% of the employees are part of that group. if X%-%Y > Z%, then fail the test. otherwise succeed. ~a
[2020-07-06 18:18:14] - I think part of the struggle with AA is that its hard? impossible? to know when to end. Like you can look at historical stuff and be like yeah 0% blacks were let in to this institution and clearly some should have gotten in on merit so lets try to fix that. But then years/decades later its hard to know if it is still needed? or needed as much? There isn't a good metric for "how biased is your selection process". -Daniel
[2020-07-06 18:16:15] - I don't know enough to argue pros / cons of AA well but I think the idea of trying to allow for diversity and recognize that merit first had failings due to bias / racism isn't a bad idea. I do think it gets messy and does create some bad side effects at best. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 18:00:27] - I find AA policies offensive. - mig
[2020-07-06 18:00:06] - daniel: maybe we should just stop using the term affirmative action? equal opportunity employer has such a better ring to it. i'll admit that i don't know what either of those terms mean legally. ~a
[2020-07-06 17:58:06] - And diversity is generally thought to be a goal worth pursuing in these larger institutions. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 17:57:37] - Paul: Yeah AA is definitely messy at best. Its an attempt to forcibly fix the problem where systemic racism was affecting minorities abilities to do whatever the thing in question is (generally college I guess?). I don't think AA assumes things about someone based on their color except that by virtue of having a different skin color it adds diversity. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 17:52:31] - yay, more good news about covid19 today. jesus. ~a
[2020-07-06 17:50:52] - so bold. ~a
[2020-07-06 17:50:41] - or . . . at least . . . affirmative action is messy. ~a
[2020-07-06 17:48:52] - i'll say it. affirmative action is dumb. ~a
[2020-07-06 17:48:26] - Daniel: Okay, so how does that square with things like affirmative action? Isn't the whole idea of that assuming things of specific individuals based on skin color? -Paul
[2020-07-06 17:35:37] - I think assuming all white people are bigoted is a racist statement. I think white privilege is trickier since thats a bit more nebulous and is more a concept that applies to the population as a whole. I think if I lost all my hair due to cancer but someone saw me and assumed I was a skinhead that would be racist. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 17:29:53] - daniel: "Don't make assumptions about a person based on their skin" does that go both ways? Like the attitude that whites are inherently bigoted or priveleged? - mig
[2020-07-06 17:01:05] - Is the confusion about all race related things being racist in your head? If you are making assumptions about a specific person based on race, thats bad. If you are assigning inherent elements to people based on their race thats bad. If you say that more blacks % wise live in poverty in the US than whites thats not bad. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:57:15] - *if you don't know anything else about the kids* -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:56:39] - Saying that a hypothetical math club is only 8% black isn't racist. Looking at two black kids in the math club and saying 'wow they are doing great for overcoming their absentee fathers' would be racist. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:55:04] - Don't make assumptions about a person based on their skin. Talking about factual things about demographic segments of the population doesn't seem racist. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:54:26] - I think the idea that minorities (of all stripes) have disadvantages is not racist and should be relatively obvious to everyone. To then label a specific person as such based on their skin is racist. The idea is not to apply generalizations to a specific person. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:50:44] - Daniel: It's not about whether it is fair to whites or not, but I DO believe that generally if something is racist if said about whites, then it is also racist when said about blacks (going back to a previous discussion). -Paul
[2020-07-06 16:48:42] - Daniel: I'm trying to feel out where the line is between "unacceptably racist" and... honestly, "you have to accept this as truth or else you are irredeemably racist" is. To circle back to the beginning: the idea that blacks as a group are generally disadvantaged seems like it alternatively is either racist or an obvious fact that everybody needs to accept. -Paul
[2020-07-06 16:38:16] - I'm not sure where we are going with this though? Some logical point that it isn't fair to white people? I mean maybe but the world isn't fair and I don't think white people have the same issues with racism so maybe our "downside" is that we don't get pro white people trade group or mentor ship programs? -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:36:05] - Also there is the context that generally in the past those that have pro white people groups are just white supremacists so you have some historical baggage there even if you were somehow doing this for some benign reason. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:35:12] - Paul: I'm not sure about ranking races thing that you mean? I think generally people agree that on the whole white folks have it easier (though this ties back into the earlier thing where its like the populace and might be wrong for any given specific person) so having a I'm going to help white people group would be tricky since most people would wonder why you are trying to help those that generally don't need it. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:31:59] - paul/daniel: fivethirtyeight grades "fox news" polls with "A-" (which is really high). few agencies get "A-" or "A+". ~a
[2020-07-06 16:28:56] - I thought I had heard that, despite the name/association, Fox Polls are generally pretty high quality. Could be wrong, though. -Paul
[2020-07-06 16:27:53] - Daniel: Right, and this goes back to the whole "ranking" races thing (was that a discussion with you guys, or was that just Travis and Andrew?). If it's fine for "black people" but "tricky" for "white people" because they are advantaged... doesn't that imply that it's okay for non-whites because they are disadvantaged? -Paul
[2020-07-06 16:20:59] - Fox News has always had some issues with Fox Polling. I remember when they were calling an election for Obama and Rove was trying to convince people they were wrong (during the election coverage). -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:20:04] - a: I don't know how formal / not formal huffPost is but I stopped reading them awhile ago because they didn't seem like a source even interested in trying to be unbiased. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:17:42] - is it weird to see "rage quit" in the context of huffington post? it seems like a pretty weird wording to use in the context of politics, imo. is huffington post less formal than i thought? also, it's kinda a funny story in its own right. i didn't think we'd get to the overton window where "fox news is moderate news" so fucking quickly. ~a
[2020-07-06 16:11:12] - Paul: I think 'white' is tricky because generally people see them as the already advantaged group. Helping VT grads is neutral on that front. I think it would be just as acceptable to say I want to help VT grads and I want to help Native American Grads. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:10:51] - daniel: "200 scientists" ~a
[2020-07-06 16:10:07] - daniel: i've seen it in multiple places. one of them was npr. i'll get you a link. ~a
[2020-07-06 16:09:46] - a: Source on covid aersol thing? -Daniel
[2020-07-06 16:09:38] - Daniel: I guess let me ask you this: Is it just as acceptable to say, "I only want to help Virginia Tech grads" as it is to say, "I only want to help white people"? -Paul
[2020-07-06 16:09:04] - paul: that's good.
~a[2020-07-06 16:08:24] - a: I completely don't understand what you are saying. I didn't even get the tactlessness.
-Paul[2020-07-06 16:08:07] - s/non-95/non-n95/ oops. ~a
[2020-07-06 16:04:16] - ughhhhhhhhh. sad day. covid19 is now starting to be considered spread through the air (aerosol spread) which means wearing a non-95 mask *or* not wearing a mask when further than 6-feet away might be worse than we thought. i hope this ends up being wrong. it's kinda bad news. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:56:39] - paul: I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I guess maybe there is an argument that same race groups or gender groups are made in response to some perceived disadvantage but there are probably degrees there and seems like a bigger jump to equate that to "at risk". -Daniel
[2020-07-06 15:53:22] - there, i'm being tactless.
~a[2020-07-06 15:52:11] - paul: it's not the only part. it's just a part that you seem to be able to sense. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:51:16] - Daniel: "I mean like people work with their alumni groups etc and I don't think it implies those groups are disadvantaged" Sure, but you don't think things change and people get their hackles up when you change "alumni group" to "same race group"? -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:50:19] - a: "the tactlessness that you sense is what will make some people sad" I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the tactlessness isn't a small part that is wrong, it's the only part? -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:49:59] - I don't think choosing to work with other black designers implies they are disadvantaged. I mean like people work with their alumni groups etc and I don't think it implies those groups are disadvantaged. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 15:49:29] - "there's a certain level of partial-information we're dealing with here" for example, if you change "black" to "white", that's were i'd be like "hmmm, do we actually have all the information here?" or not? ~a
[2020-07-06 15:47:54] - paul: "strongly imply a certain racist motivation OR the idea that the black game designers are disadvantaged and need help?" no. not in my opinion. but i mean, there's a certain level of partial-information we're dealing with here. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:44:43] - paul: "tactlessness of it" no, this is the part. the tactlessness that you sense is what will make some people sad. here's a hypothetical that is not meant to be real or even directly related: imagine if i had a conversation with you where i only spoke with tactless statements. to say the least, you would not enjoy the conversation. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:44:16] - a: I mean, heck, doesn't the very idea that a black game designer wants to specifically help other black game designers strongly imply a certain racist motivation OR the idea that the black game designers are disadvantaged and need help? -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:42:56] - a: I guess I am struggling with how those two are all that dissimilar. Both are relying on the idea that a group of people being disadvantaged based on their race, no? I can understand how the black game designer example is more uncomfortable because of the certain tactlessness of it, but the idea behind both seems the same to me. -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:39:18] - come on, france ~a
[2020-07-06 15:36:01] - yes. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:34:21] - a: So would you say that is a different level than the sentiment of: "certainly black people are disproportionately harmed by our faulty systems"? -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:34:12] - paul: there might be. you're right. if it were me i would somehow try to distance the two conversations in time. or (somehow tactfully) make sure the conversations were separate. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:32:47] - a: I think there would still be an implied link without the "also", but I do get your point. -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:27:24] - paul: if you remove the word "also" it doesn't imply a link though. so it might be different. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:26:34] - paul: wrong: yes. offensive: yeah, i think so, but the whole eye-roll-and-ignore thing that miguel said earlier. racist: i guess we agreed earlier that it was border-line. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:25:13] - And there was another board game designer (race uncertain, but I assumed they were white) who said they also do work with "at-risk" youth. Is that wrong / offensive / racist? (3 separate questions) -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:23:18] - Okay, here's something that came up in my discussion with Travis which confuses me (and I am going to try to tell the story as neutrally as possible to avoiding biasing the answer). He told a story about a black board game designer who said he mentors other black board game designers... -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:19:51] - Just to be clear, I am not trying to catch you all in some sort of gotcha. I don't even necessarily have a "point" I am trying to make. I am just trying to find the common ground among us and see where specifically we differ. -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:18:57] - a: Okay, I don't see the importance of the difference in wording, but that makes sense. -Paul
[2020-07-06 15:12:10] - a: I think we mostly agree - I'm just trying to think about the scope of being face to face with a concrete person. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 15:11:49] - a: Sure - Maybe we are understanding Pauls question differently - like if I'm sitting down to lunch with someone I don't think I should assume their past life experience (ha sounds like reincarnation) but wouldn't be shocked if it fit into some national picture of systemic problems. But yes solving the problems certainly requires change at the system level. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 15:08:09] - daniel: i agree with that, yah. i'd go further though, and even avoid the probability thing entirely. it doesn't help anything because nobody likes to be considered a statistic. it's better to try to solve the problem with inequality at the system level. i.e. don't ever treat people like a sum of their dna. ~a
[2020-07-06 15:06:04] - But if you are dealing with a specific person its probably better to talk to that person and see what their personal experiences have been than to assume them. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 15:04:29] - Paul: I think the idea isn't to assume certainties about any one specific person really. However you could assume certain things are more likely. So its more likely that a black person has dealt with oppression of some form but there probably exists some one who hasn't. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 15:02:18] - i'd word it very differently, but yes. basically i'd word it as i did. with the curse words removed: certainly black people are disproportionately harmed by our faulty systems. ~a
[2020-07-06 14:59:17] - Daniel: I'm on board with the probability idea for a specific person. So is it okay to assume that a specific person has suffered oppression (or has privilege) based on their race? Or is that unacceptable? -Paul
[2020-07-06 14:58:13] - a: Sure, so you think it's fine to say that, as a group of people, blacks have certainly had poorer experiences than whites in America? -Paul
[2020-07-06 14:55:19] - Daniel: Yeah, sorry, that slash was supposed to be re-using the word "white" and not equating the two, but I see how that is confusing now. -Paul
[2020-07-06 14:44:14] - yah. ~a
[2020-07-06 14:44:02] - a: Sure. I was just thinking of Paul interacting with a specific person but yeah I think our statements are compatible. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 14:42:41] - daniel: i don't even see it as probability of something bad having happened to a certain person, but a certainty of something bad having happened to a group of people. i.e. certainly a shit-ton of black people are disproportionately fucked over by our crappy systems. ~a
[2020-07-06 14:41:16] - white supremacy != white privilege also -Daniel
[2020-07-06 14:40:34] - Maybe instead of definitely assuming some sort of experience you could think of it in terms of probability? Someone is more likely to have experienced being pulled over / treated poorly by cops if they are black but probably not every single black person has had that experience. -Daniel
[2020-07-06 14:39:12] - nope. ~a
[2020-07-06 14:38:48] - a: Well, because that's what is seems like this whole idea of white supremacy / privilege and black oppression is. Isn't just just assuming that all people of a certain race have certain experiences? -Paul
[2020-07-06 14:36:13] - i guess? why. ~a
[2020-07-06 14:33:10] - So.... wrong, but not super objectionably wrong? Less wrong than assuming somebody has a specific character trait based on race? -Paul
[2020-07-05 15:08:59] - paul: yeah, i'm with miguel. it's fairly borderline. ~a
[2020-07-04 23:54:59] - paul: probably? but more in the “I’m gonna eyeroll and let it go.” level of offense. - mig
[2020-07-04 21:00:44] - Okay, here's a follow-up question for my racism definition question: Is it racist to assume some set of experiences based on race? -Paul
[2020-07-03 18:55:11] - tabletop simulator on steam has tons of board games as modules though it is $20 i think. - mig
[2020-07-03 18:32:31] - Paul: I'm not opposed to being invited but I don't know how often I could do but maybe. -Daniel
[2020-07-03 13:25:08] - Daniel: Gurkie plays on it a fair amount. I could ask her to invite you the next time she does. -Paul
[2020-07-03 06:17:10] - a: boardgamearena was something I was looking at so if you've used it before that makes me feel better about trying it out. -Daniel
[2020-07-02 22:41:30] - daniel: probably doesn't answer you question, but boardgamearena.com and dominion.games are two websites i've used a bunch. you want something more general, or what? ~a
[2020-07-02 22:07:15] - That something you guys have pursued before? -Daniel
[2020-07-02 22:07:03] - Anyone have suggestions for playing table top style games online virtually? -Daniel
[2020-07-02 16:05:51] - a: No. Surprisingly enough, that was completely unrelated. It happened tangentially. -Paul
[2020-07-02 15:36:57] - ah, is that why you asked us for our definition of racism yesterday? ~a
[2020-07-02 15:36:26] - Daniel: Yes! I wish we had recorded because it was something we legitimately and strongly disagreed about, which is rare. At the same time, I seriously think it might get me canceled if anybody listened to it.
-Paul[2020-07-02 15:35:43] - a: Uh... it's weird, I don't know how it started. I think Travis mentioned an episode of Patriot Act on Netflix which was about how one of the cops in the George Floyd situation was Asian (and the store owner who called the cops was Muslim) and I questioned why that was relevant. -Paul
[2020-07-02 15:28:57] - Paul: Shouldn't you be podcast arguing with them and not email arguing? -Daniel
[2020-07-02 15:24:14] - what's the debate about? ~a
[2020-07-02 15:23:46] - in their defense, you are often wrong. ~a
[2020-07-02 15:23:18] - aDaniel: Sorry if I've been less combative about politics here lately. I got pulled into a debate with Travis and Andrew over email.
Turns out everybody thinks I am wrong about everything. 
-Paul[2020-07-02 01:08:01] - paul/daniel: watch the video: link (0:12 is where he says it). the reporter keeps his composure and says "you still believe so..." ~a
[2020-07-01 23:15:57] - a: I use... audacity... I think. Is that an encoder? -Paul
[2020-07-01 23:15:43] - Daniel: Wait, that is from this week? "Gonna be" implies in the future. I know he's been saying that for like 5 months, but it's crazy he's still saying it now. -Paul
[2020-07-01 22:55:04] - I get that no one here defends trump but this quote FROM TODAY is super crazy “I think we’re gonna be very good with the coronavirus. I think that at some point that’s going to, sort of, just disappear — I hope,” Mr Trump told Fox Business on Wednesday. Wow. Just wow. -Daniel
[2020-07-01 20:46:53] - paul: i know that many video encoders will use the graphics card. i'm not sure about audio encoders. but maybe. what audio encoder do you use? ~a
[2020-07-01 20:42:04] - daniel: most of that is cpu bound. memory and network and io is nominal. it could use the graphics card, but my guess is that would be too difficult to develop. ~a
[2020-07-01 20:40:44] - a: I was so disappointed to find out audacity doesn't support.... multiple cores? multiple threads? one of those things. Podcast stuff is about the only CPU intensive thing I do these days so that was the only shot I had at maxing my CPU.
-Paul[2020-07-01 20:40:02] - daniel: https://cyclemap.us/ i literally process and simplify "geographic information" for every road and path and stream and building and company and point of interest in the whole united states at dozens of zoom levels. it takes about a day, but it used to take 10+ days (somebody fixed something in the tool-chain, i'm not sure what). ~a
[2020-07-01 20:37:01] - a: days? video rendering? some crazy local database query crunching? what else takes days? -Daniel
[2020-07-01 20:32:15] - daniel/paul: that's fair. i have single-threaded stuff max out a single thread pretty often. which is why the "threadmark" score seems most interesting to me. also, i definitely run a lot of stuff that takes DAYS to finish, doubling the cpu power would be pretty sweet. ~a
[2020-07-01 20:31:39] - a: Jedi Fallen Order makes it max out and sometimes if I have a lot of stuff open and browser tabs it can get pretty high but I think that might be it? I guess I don't pay attention to it much during most games though so maybe its more than I know? -Daniel
[2020-07-01 20:31:01] - a: Rarely, I think, and when I do I think I am resigned to it taking "a few minutes" so I will walk away and do something else, so it doesn't really matter if it gets done in 30 seconds or 5 minutes. -Paul
[2020-07-01 20:29:35] - a: Not Paul but I don't think my cpu maxes very often. -Daniel
[2020-07-01 20:23:48] - paul: "I've never noticed any improvement from a better CPU" i've been thinking on this: i think it depends on what you're doing, right? some stuff seems memory bound, other stuff seems io bound (network/disk), and then other stuff seems cpu bound. if you're doing a lot of the last-things, a newer cpu will definitely improve things. do you never do stuff that is cpu bound? (like where you're waiting and task manager says 100% cpu?) ~a
[2020-07-01 18:55:07] - i honestly think the landscape will be different in 6 months. no need to rush it. ~a
[2020-07-01 18:54:14] - the language of the bet even implies push: "assuming we have a reliable way to calculate it". ~a
[2020-07-01 18:53:25] - meh. we can always push. ~a
[2020-07-01 18:52:12] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/official-us-coronavirus-death-toll-is-a-substantial-undercount-of-actual-tally-new-yale-study-finds.html Regardless of our bet, I am getting less and less confident that we are even going to have numbers everybody agrees on by the end of the year.
-Paul[2020-07-01 18:47:02] - the jumps seem to be in fits and starts though. for example, basically nothing changed between q1 and q2 2020 when it comes to amd or intel cpus (in my price range). ~a
[2020-07-01 18:44:06] -
yeah. it's still amazing to me how quickly this shit improves. according to daniel's link from april, he got a ryzen 5 3600. it's weird to me that a $170 cpu is SO MUCH faster than the $600 cpu i got in 2014. i mean i know i shouldn't be surprised but i still am. ~a[2020-07-01 18:42:41] - a: I'm amazed how fast games load when installed on them. -Paul
[2020-07-01 18:34:06] - paul: yah, def. m2 ssds are really good too imo (i know we've discussed them here before). an m2 ssd is typically orders of magnitude faster than an old-school ssd. ~a
[2020-07-01 18:33:02] - a: I figured it had something to do with multiple somethings per core. Honestly, I think the best purchase I have made for new computers in terms of increased performance has been an SSD, followed closely by memory upgrades. I've never noticed any improvement from a better CPU. -Paul
[2020-07-01 15:05:45] - paul: maybe this link is better because it includes amd. ~a
[2020-07-01 15:04:42] - paul: wikipedia link describing this. ~a
[2020-07-01 15:03:06] - paul: a thread is (basically) a virtual-cpu. and it's usually 2 threads per core. the benefit you get from threads is *not* extra computing power, but you do take a lot of pressure off of the operating system from context switching (because the cpu is much faster at context switching). this is great if you're doing a lot of non-cpu-bounded work. which is common. ~a
[2020-07-01 15:01:13] - paul: threads. six cores is typically 12 threads. that's the norm for intel too. ~a
[2020-07-01 14:46:37] - a: Oh, that makes sense. Sorry, getting my conversations crossed. I got an AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Six Core processor for my new computer. Strangely enough, the processor shows up 12 times (?) in my control panel despite only being 6 cores? -Paul
[2020-07-01 14:45:59] - No issues with Andrea's so far though thats smallest possible sample size. I generally lean heavily on logicalincrements.com for suggestions and they are pro ryzen. -Daniel
[2020-07-01 14:41:06] - "for the first time" meant i've only ever owned computers with intel (not counting smartphones). ~a
[2020-07-01 14:40:14] - i own the stock.
~a[2020-07-01 14:39:55] - paul: sorry, haha. i didn't mean stock purchase. i meant cpu purchase! ~a
[2020-07-01 14:39:16] - a: I owned AMD way back in 2005-ish. It was a huge winner for me.... until it was not. Felt so burned by it that I haven't gone back despite being tempted. My loss. -Paul
[2020-07-01 14:38:19] - a: Love the name. Wait, you haven't owned AMD this entire time!? -Paul
[2020-07-01 14:37:02] - crazy. any downsides to amd? i'm considering them (for the first time) for a 2020 or 2021 purchase. ~a
[2020-07-01 14:36:18] - Ryzen was what I got for Andrea's new computer for one anecdotal data point. -Daniel
[2020-07-01 14:34:26] - i don't think amd is only winning the "slow core" game either. they have some cpus with a modest number (12) of *fast* cores too: i.e. the amd ryzen cpus. they seem to be beating intel in everything? ~a
[2020-07-01 14:29:04] - check out this cpu. i don't think this is a case of "omg, its a weird cpu that nobody is selling that's why its so expensive". this is a truly popular cpu that is expensive because it has a fuck-ton of cores. amd has a bunch of cpus now with 64 slow cores (128 threads). wtf! i can't find any intel cpus with more than 18 cores. ~a
[2020-07-01 14:27:33] - a: I only got pennies from KSHB too, but hey, I like those pennies being in something like SE or LVGO instead of KSHB going forward.
-Paul[2020-07-01 14:22:09] - a: I have laid out my retirement plan for retiring in 15 years and the Freedom Portfolio is already where I projected it to be at 2024, so four years ahead of schedule.
-Paul[2020-07-01 14:20:45] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/the-freedom-portfolio-july-2020/ There, fixed it. -Paul
[2020-07-01 13:48:26] - a: Embarrassed because it's weird to brag about how well I did during the same quarter that we're also talking about fatality ratios and historic unemployment. -Paul
[2020-07-01 13:47:46] - a: Yeah, I realized after the fact the graph is a little weird. I might change it. -Paul
[2020-07-01 05:47:35] - love the post. i'm also considering selling kshb, but at this point i only have pennies left . . . what's the point? it's a little weird seeing your graph start at 100%. i think most people subtract 1 from their values. so you'd see +50% and -50% instead of 150% and 50%. ~a
[2020-07-01 05:31:21] - i feel the same way: i also will likely never have a better investing quarter than this one. embarrassed, why? ~a
[2020-06-30 23:58:26] - a: I had 8 positions more than double. 8! -Paul
[2020-06-30 23:57:17] - a: I'm almost embarrassed to say (almost) that the Freedom Portfolio returned 73%. -Paul
[2020-06-30 23:56:32] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/the-freedom-portfolio-july-2020/ An actual line from my write-up: "This might be the best investing quarter that I will ever have." -Paul
[2020-06-30 23:11:11] - paul: it's possible this was the best quarter for my individual stock picks ever. it's ironic that i'm losing the stock market challenge! beating the market by 23% in a quarter is unprecedented for me. ~a
[2020-06-30 23:05:59] - paul: q2 ends today . . . how did you do? i checked my individual investment return this quarter. +43%! that's 320% annualized. (s&p500 total-return is "only" up 21% this quarter.). looks like it was because of rdfn, tsla, shop, bynd, and very few "losers": the stocks i had that did the worst were ones i was barely invested in. ~a
[2020-06-30 20:39:15] - a: I need to think on it more, but I'm sure I'll have follow-up questions later if you all are game.
-Paul[2020-06-30 20:38:54] - a: Um... I just wanted to know if I was alone on an island with my definition of racism or not. -Paul
[2020-06-30 19:41:15] - so . . . what's it all mean? why did you ask? ~a
[2020-06-30 16:00:34] - Daniel: Probably pretty close to yours. I'm not sure if "primary" should be in there or not. I'm leaning towards not. -Paul
[2020-06-30 15:48:47] - paul: So whats your definition? -Daniel
[2020-06-30 15:48:08] - Daniel: It wasn't intended to be a round about way of getting at anything. I was more thinking that my definition of racism is very different from others that I know (and I think the definition is slowly getting changed to be different than what I think it is). I was wondering what people here thought. -Paul
[2020-06-30 15:46:22] - Daniel: Ha! You're right, I did imply that. Sorry, I didn't mean to. I was trying to be careful how I phrased it and still screwed it up. -Paul
[2020-06-30 15:21:45] - Paul: If this is a round about way to ask if someone could be racist against like white people then I think yes you can be. -Daniel
[2020-06-30 15:21:20] - Paul: Your question presupposes its part of the definition. I don't think it is. -Daniel
[2020-06-30 15:14:02] - Daniel: Interesting. Okay, that sounds good to me. So do you think whether the person involved is a minority or disadvantaged group is an important part of the definition? -Paul
[2020-06-30 15:05:05] - Paul: Dictionary included the word 'primary' as in race is a primary determining factor for characteristcs / attributes / features / facts etc -Daniel
[2020-06-30 14:52:45] - a: You can give a definition after checking a dictionary if you want. -Paul
[2020-06-30 14:52:22] - Daniel: Would you change anything after checking a dictionary? -Paul
[2020-06-30 14:52:15] - I was in the ballpark but think I missed at least one core concept. -Daniel
[2020-06-30 14:52:01] - Daniel: You were always allowed to. I have no power over you.
Thanks for playing my game, though! -Paul[2020-06-30 14:51:37] - a: Totally fine! I just wanted to get a sense of people's definitions without being biased by the definition of others first. I understand why you wouldn't want to, though. -Paul
[2020-06-30 14:42:50] - daniel: yes.
~a[2020-06-30 14:42:33] - Now am I allowed to use a dictionary? -Daniel
[2020-06-30 14:42:19] - Paul: While agreeing somewhat with A I think the core concept is to assume characteristcs / attributes / features / facts etc of someone based on their race. -Daniel
[2020-06-30 14:36:16] - iow, i decline. ~a
[2020-06-30 14:35:12] - paul: why can't we use a dictionary or check the internet? it's a complex concept with a rich history, so it's probably not easy to get all the workings out of the box on the first try. ~a
[2020-06-30 14:34:14] - Daniel: Hey, that's better satisfaction that I am currently getting. That's an intriguing offer... -Paul
[2020-06-30 14:33:44] - Question for anybody here: Without consulting a dictionary or checking the internet... how would you define "racism"? -Paul
[2020-06-30 14:31:53] - jesus, you're just giving away satisfaction?! we only match satisfaction to the first 2% . . . and even then it isn't at 1:1. ~a
[2020-06-30 14:30:49] - How could anyone say no to that?! -Daniel
[2020-06-30 14:30:26] - Satisfaction at a job well done. I will match that satisfaction at a 1:1 ratio to first 4% of your total satisfaction for your satisfaction savings. *no currency is implied by said satisfaction. all benefits are subject to you actually doing a good job and feeling satisfied -Daniel
[2020-06-30 14:20:30] - Daniel: What benefits do you offer? -Paul
[2020-06-30 13:41:00] - Paul should work for you? ~a
[2020-06-29 20:05:59] - Paul: should work for me. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 20:04:40] - in. ~a
[2020-06-29 20:03:48] - Starcraft on Thursday? -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:57:31] - it's hard to compare two very-diverse histories though
maybe we could come up with some specific metrics? ~a[2020-06-29 19:54:12] - paul: i don't know. ~a
[2020-06-29 19:51:50] - a: I can't speak for that, because I have no experience, does the military have the same reputation for protecting bad soldiers and punishing whistle-blowers? I know there is some history, but is it as bad as the police's history? -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:49:31] - Daniel: Maybe? Regardless, I think it is far from making them bastards. I still think they are good people and maybe even good cops.... I just wish they were better. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:48:49] - paul: i agree and i disagree. i'll say i'd focus on this part "Obviously my issue isn't one of life and death...." just because the stakes are higher, doesn't make it easier, but i've definitely witnessed people in these situations (in the military), and they DON'T keep quiet: (in my experiences) they say whats on their mind assertively, quickly, and with purpose when they know lives are at stake. ~a
[2020-06-29 19:47:54] - I can have sympathy for the positions of some of the hypthetical police that we are discussing. But that doesn't make them good cops. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:45:05] - a: But I guess I have some sympathy for people who might want to do the right thing, but when it's 1 person versus everybody else and you know with certainty that the outcome will be bad.... it's hard to be brave. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:44:08] - a: Ironically enough, I literally wrote an email to somebody just a few hours ago about how I am a little bit ashamed at myself for being cowardly and not speaking up about something that I feel is the right thing but I know will absolutely get me into trouble. Obviously my issue isn't one of life and death.... -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:42:43] - a: Yeah, I dunno. I get it in this case, but when we're talking about cops not forcefully acting out against their coworkers during protests where emotions are often running high... I have a hard time blaming people for not being brave and being the sole individual to step out and do something that will almost certainly get them in trouble even if it is right. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:33:56] - oops, sorry, the charge for the three cops nearby were "aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder" ~a
[2020-06-29 19:32:38] - paul: i'll answer for daniel: CLEARLY, yes. in fact, they're all three charged with (2nd degree) murder now because they didn't step in. ~a
[2020-06-29 19:30:38] - Daniel: That's fair. I guess you would want to see those other cops in the George Floyd arrest step in and push him off? -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:29:23] - a: Yes, I think independent oversight is one of the best reforms being offered along with things like ending qualified immunity. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:24:34] - paul: how about this for a specific: is anybody here against internal affairs being an independent civilian organization? i feel like cops should never be investigating themselves. that's like having a republican AG being in charge of investigating the president. some juristictions already do this, actually. dc, baltimore, and fairfax to name a few. civilian police oversight agency#List of places with civilian oversight ~a
[2020-06-29 19:13:07] - Paul: I think my definition of bad cop is broader than yours. "the good cops might decide to stay quiet." then those cops aren't good anymore. I don't think all cops are murderers. Just somewhat complicit in their institution allowing murderers to flourish. Then the rest of us follow for not doing more to reign in police since like the begining of police? -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:11:00] - Daniel: Seriously, if 600,000 cops were bad, they wouldn't we be seeing like hundreds of examples of police shootings and abuse every day? -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:10:27] - Daniel: I mean, police misconduct is bad, and we definitely should do everything we can to stop it, and it happens all the time, right? But it happens all the time because we hear about it every time it happens. In terms of absolute numbers, it's not that big. There are hundreds of thousands of cops. If they were all bad, can you imagine the bloodbath? -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:09:07] - Daniel: "I think as the public if we can't tell and we don't know then I don't think we have much choice than to assume its not happening." I think this might be a main source of our disagreement here. I am very dubious regarding the media's ability to present an accurate representation of what is going on in the country. I don't at all think that if this was happening we would know about it. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:07:48] - Daniel: "If police as an institution are actively weeding out those that are doing good then that seems to support my side here." Kinda? I think it supports my point that the institutions are rotten, not necessarily the people. Good cops only get punished if they speak up, so the good cops might decide to stay quiet. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:07:26] - random aside I suck at spelling protesters. I get it wrong like every time and have to auto correct. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:07:07] - Also supports A's argument that its hard to speak up. I get that. I just don't think its sufficient (for any of us). -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:06:27] - daniel: acab, because the non-bastards have all been fired? ~a
[2020-06-29 19:06:21] - If police as an institution are actively weeding out those that are doing good then that seems to support my side here. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:05:51] - Paul: Yes I've seen some of those. Which seems to further the point that cops are bad since the good ones get fired? -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:05:24] - Paul: I think as the public if we can't tell and we don't know then I don't think we have much choice than to assume its not happening. I mean if its happening and failing is that better? -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:04:47] - Daniel: But also, there's lots of stories about good cops doing the right thing and objecting to bad behavior and THEY get punished. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:04:28] - paul: that's what i said. ~a
[2020-06-29 19:04:21] - Paul: No public instances of cops calling out other cops for their violence towards protesters specifically in the last few weeks, generally with cops calling out other cops for their violence towards the public in general. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:04:11] - Daniel: Or, it's done internally. I really doubt in any organization the best way to enact change is to go to the media and talk smack about your coworkers. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:04:01] - daniel: agreed. ~a
[2020-06-29 19:03:38] - a: I know they aren't doing it publicly. MAYBE they are doing it privately but then I guess I would just say that it seems to have failed? Yes its probably hard so that be why its not done but that doesn't make it good (or them good cops). -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:03:05] - Daniel: "I've seen a couple of instances but like single digits I think" Yeah, because when that happens it isn't newsworthy, right? I mean, CNN isn't going to run a big front-page story about how peaceful protesters were met by respectful cops because nobody cares about that. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:01:23] - a: People can articulate objections to people like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, MLK, etc. Everybody who has ever had something named after them can be canceled for some reason or another. Instead of just wiping names from everything, let's acknowledge the bad things they did in addition to the great things. -Paul
[2020-06-29 19:01:17] - Changing names and statues doesn't equate to changing history. Changing what is celebrated from history maybe. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 19:00:25] - daniel: 1. you don't know that they aren't doing that. 2. it's probably hard to work with people when you're constantly on their back about shit. i mean, i get it, this isn't normal workplace shit, but still, i bet it's hard to be that cop that's like: hey, everybody act the way i want you to act. ~a
[2020-06-29 19:00:18] - I think its a high standard that they (the supposed good cops) and the rest of us have generally failed. Except now as we try to be like hey maybe step down the violence the police are doubling down. Where are the police chiefs denouncing their fellow officers? Where are the officers publicly shaming and calling out the rest of their fraternity? I've seen a couple of instances but like single digits I think. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 18:59:02] - Paul: "I think the majority are good people trying to do the best they can in a system that isn't set up well." - I think I agree on the system part. And I do agree I'm being hard on cops but I don't get if you are a "good" cop who comes into work on monday and a fellow officer shot a protester in the face with pepper spray you aren't like WTF BUDDY DON"T DO THAT SHIT. I think that makes you a bad cop. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 18:58:52] - a: US history is messy and imperfect and mistakes were made and I think it's better to acknowledge that and confront it rather than trying to remove all traces of it from history. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:57:46] - a: Not really. I think most of it is silly window-dressing that distracts from the more important issues. Most of it I don't care about (Uncle Ben, etc), but some of it I disagree with and wish they wouldn't do (getting rid of old 30 Rock and Office episodes, tearing down statues of Grant, renaming stuff named after Washington, etc). -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:48:13] - paul: yes. they're fixing multiple broken things. i love it. don't you love it? ~a
[2020-06-29 18:47:17] - a: The master/slave thing was supposed to be the other end of the spectrum. This whole "BLM" movement has inspired a lot of reactions that run the gamut of anti-racism and abolishing the police to tearing down statues to censoring old sitcoms that had blackface to renaming university buildings to all sorts of other things. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:44:54] - protest slogans sometimes aren't literal. ~a
[2020-06-29 18:43:46] - a: "how is blm and "defund the police" incongruent?" I'm not sure how they overlap? Also, both are pretty vague slogans that (apparently?) mean very different things than what they literally mean, according to things I've read about what the slogans actually mean. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:42:27] - paul: i draw a clear distinction between individual protesters and the protests as a whole. ~a
[2020-06-29 18:41:58] - a: I draw a clear distinction between individual cops and the criminal justice system as a whole. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:41:54] - how is blm and "defund the police" incongruent? "no more whitelist/blacklist and master/slave in programming?" this seems like a terrible interpretation of what you've been seeing: what protests have there been about master/slave in programming? ~a
[2020-06-29 18:41:05] - a: Oh, sure. And I would use stronger language against the police. I think the nuance for me is that, while I think some cops are very bad people, I think the majority are good people trying to do the best they can in a system that isn't set up well. The system asks too much of them and does too much to protect bad officers. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:32:25] - paul: "I question the wisdom of them and possible disagree with the efficacy and motivations of some" this is exactly how i feel about the police. i don't think acab. i don't condemn them. i question the wisdom of them (especially leadership) and possibly disagree with the efficacy and motivations of some. ~a ~a
[2020-06-29 18:30:45] - a: I mean, it's tough because I feel like it's a little scattershot in terms of what the protests are about and what they are trying to accomplish? "Black Lives Matter"? "Defund the Police"? Tear down statues? No more whitelist/blacklist and master/slave in programming? -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:29:18] - a: Actually, I do know the answer. "Condemn" is too strong a word. I don't condemn them. I question the wisdom of them and possible disagree with the efficacy and motivations of some. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:26:57] - a: I know you didn't ask, but I don't really know how to answer if I condemn the protests themselves. Beyond the Coronavirus concerns, I also really don't know if it's the best way to enact change considering the violence that has been involved with some of them and the political focus of some of them. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:25:38] - a: Um... I condemn the protesters who are violent and looting. I do NOT condemn the protesters who are NOT violent and NOT looting (although I question their judgement regarding Coronavirus and possibly some of their motivations when it comes to specific off-shoot protests). -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:23:27] - Daniel: Where I do think we can find common ground, though, is that there are some long running systemic issues with how policing is done in this country which makes bad officers difficult to discipline and remove from police forces and makes them unaccountable for their bad behavior. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:22:40] - paul: to be totally clear, you don't condemn the protesters based on a small sample size of violence and looting that went on during some of them, right? ~a
[2020-06-29 18:21:30] - Daniel: I still don't see much of a difference between condemning all police as evil based on a small sample size versus condemning all of the protesters as evil based on a small sample size of violence and looting that went on during some of them. -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:19:17] - Daniel: But there are hundreds of thousands of police officers in the United States and it still doesn't seem right to me to condemn all of them based off of cherry-picked videos involving maybe a couple hundred of them. For each of these that went down, how many completely benign police responses didn't make the nightly news because everybody was on their best behavior? -Paul
[2020-06-29 18:16:09] - Daniel: I completely agree that most of the police response videos that I've seen on social media and in news reporting has been pretty bad, especially in light of the fact that they're taking place during protests against police brutality. It's almost like they're trying to prove their critics' point. And this is all going down while the public eye is on them! -Paul
[2020-06-29 15:55:47] - I think the answer to some degree does rest in the we all suck arguement that we all allowed it to happen and that voting and protesting will be needed to get / make politiicans actually deal with police depts but seriously is there a way to look at the overall police response to the Floyd protests and not conclude they have no interest in being checked or agreeing that they have gone to far? -Daniel
[2020-06-29 15:54:04] - https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/amp32998301/elijah-mcclain-aurora-police-violin-vigil/ I know we moved on from the ACAB stuff - but like seriously where are the good cops? At what point and after how many instances would it take to rethink our law enforcement institutions and the power we have vested to them. -Daniel
[2020-06-29 00:21:10] - aaron: Like, there's one where Jake goes into Odo's office and is like, "My Dad wasn't in his quarters this morning" and they eventually figure out Ben just disappeared, and it's weird the computer didn't realize that at some point and warn them before Jake did. -Paul
[2020-06-29 00:20:24] - aaron: Yeah, you're spot on with that. The ability for them to track people by their comm badges (or just by scanning for life forms on the ship) is wildly inconsistent. There's a couple instances of it happening on DS9 as well. -Paul
[2020-06-28 21:41:07] - aaron: i'mma let paul respond to this. i feel like he'll have better assessments than i will. (my only thought is, they don't actually use the computer to invade peoples privacy except, like, during an emergency. also, it's a military ship, so i think there's a certain level of: nobody really ever gets privacy when on active duty in the military) ~a
[2020-06-28 18:40:27] - at first i was like -- maybe 300 years from now they decided to REALLY tighten up on privacy, but i don't think that's the case because of how often they're like, "computer!!! where is the location of commander riker and deanna troy??" "Deanna Troy And Commander Riker Are In Deanna Troy's Quarters." - aaron
prev <-> next