prev <-> next
[2020-10-02 15:04:55] - supposedly both have "mild symptoms". - mig
[2020-10-02 13:21:23] - understood. ~a
[2020-10-02 13:21:03] - a: The market hates uncertainty. Remember the huge drop when Trump won? I wouldn't be surprised if it recovers later in the day. -Paul
[2020-10-02 10:07:15] - huh weird. the stock market (futures) dropped 1.5% at the same time the tweet went on twitter. 1.5% (in 5 minutes) is huge. ~a
[2020-10-02 09:50:12] - daniel: male. 74 years old. obesity. his personal ifr is really bad. on the other hand, he'll definitely get top-notch care. ~a
[2020-10-02 09:36:28] - daniel: File:Concept of incubation period.svg: infection period (period of communicability) for covid starts at 2-days in. decidedly before symptoms. it is very likely he was hurting biden with the virus in two ways simultaneously. using the rant coming out of his mouth and the air. i'm very happy their campaigns agreed ahead of time to not shake hands before the debate. ~a
[2020-10-02 09:21:48] - daniel: it was a throwaway line from the debate, so i had completely forgotten about it, but now it should be the line of the night: "i don't have -- i don't wear masks like him. every time you see him, he's got a mask. he could be speaking 200 feet away from them and he shows up with the biggest mask i've ever seen." what does biggest mask even mean?! ~a
[2020-10-02 05:11:32] - Trump has covid. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311892190680014849?s=20 I honestly don't know what to do with that. I hope it gets better and he learns from it? Or something? What a crazy ass year. -Daniel
[2020-10-01 21:11:48] - i’ll give you an example, insulin—it was destroying families, destroying people, the cost. i’m getting it for so cheap it’s like water, you want to know the truth. so cheap.
[2020-10-01 17:31:28] - So even though the number of skill fractures went way down, because players stop fearing cracking their head open, they started playing more dangerously, leading to more concussions. -Paul
[2020-10-01 17:30:48] - It reminds me of a Freakonomics podcast episode where they argued that putting helmets on football players has, in some ways, made the game more dangerous in terms of incentivizing dangerous tackling methods by leading with their head (leading to more concussions). -Paul
[2020-10-01 17:29:23] - Daniel: Nope. Not really trying to make any point other than (assuming this is true, which I fully admit might not be), "sometimes it's funny the unintended consequences of certain rules". -Paul
[2020-10-01 17:00:41] - Paul: I'm confused by if you are making a point (and then what that point would be) or if you are just pointing out an interesting oddity that car seats have a potential impact on peoples decisions to have a third kid. Which could make a small intuitive amount of sense but like adrian said lots of factors go into that decision. -Daniel
[2020-10-01 16:32:54] - i'm totally fine with dead children. i'm not fine with increasing dead children to get nothing (subjectively) in return. ~a
[2020-10-01 16:31:26] - a: I know it sounds cold and uncaring to sound like you are even coming close to suggesting that a certain number of dead children might be acceptable, but we already make those determinations when it comes to things like permitting swimming pools or even bathtubs and stuff. -paul
[2020-10-01 16:30:19] - a: Or, laws that also take those studies into consideration? Permit some narrower car seats or something? -Paul
[2020-10-01 16:29:47] - a: I don't know what else to say other than "interesting" because, as you point out, I have no idea if there is merit behind the study. Hopefully they control for all the other variables, but clearly we need to reproduce the results to see if it is accurate. If it is? Maybe it's a piece of evidence against more strident car seat laws in the future? -Paul
[2020-10-01 16:21:09] - paul: what's more, the study might be bullshit because it sounds like it could be bullshit. don't TONS of things have a tendency to decrease birth rates? unless car seat sales were looked at meticulously over many different/separate populations (which i doubt, but i can't actually read the actual paper), i'm very worried about confounding factors. ~a
[2020-10-01 16:18:49] - paul: "if you are somebody looking into how to solve a problem like population decline" do you know anybody like that? ~a
[2020-10-01 16:18:32] - paul: can you use a different word than "interesting"? i agree its interesting, but i'd like to go further. should we do something based on this knowledge? ~a
[2020-10-01 16:18:11] - Agreed that a dead child is worse than one never conceived. But if you are somebody looking into how to solve a problem like population decline, it's something to consider, right? -Paul
[2020-10-01 16:17:33] - a: You know as much as I do from the tweet I posted. Wasn't trying to argue against car seat laws, more just that it's a super interesting trade-off (assuming the study is accurate) that I suspect most people don't think of. -Paul
[2020-10-01 15:25:46] - lol, weird coincidence, i was reading fivethirtyeight and was reading over the text "Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College". i immediately turned on npr and the first words i hear are "- wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College" (it was right after the host had said the word "biden", but from context, she probably said "biden" and not "trump"). ~a
[2020-10-01 13:52:55] - paul: (like condoms for instance . . . those things cause millions of kids to not be born. and they doubly don't even save any kids from dying. are condoms doubly bad?) ~a
[2020-10-01 13:52:05] - paul: that IS interesting. hopefully you and horpedahl aren't arguing against car seat laws. are you? doing SOMETHING that saves one kids life and encourages 50 people to voluntarily choose to not have a kid is probably still a good thing. do you know where i can read the paper? i'm really hoping they accounted for other changes in contraception and abortion laws that happened at the same time. ~a
[2020-10-01 13:38:13] - https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1311370018182045705?s=19 Who knows how accurate this is, but it sounds reasonable and is a pretty interesting way to look at things like car seat laws. -Paul
[2020-10-01 01:10:56] - Wallace makes the point there that muting the mics might not be enough. As practical as sound proof booths would be it seems unlikely. I don't really know what kind of consequences they could introduce that both sides would actually agree on to actually curb Trump. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 23:50:31] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/30/next-trump-biden-debate-will-see-format-changes-after-criticism.html "But the source also said that the group is considering cutting off a candidate’s microphone if they violate the rules." FINALLY. -Paul
[2020-09-30 20:51:45] - If we can't do this now with a pandemic ravaging old people and two ancient candidates (one of which won't shut up when it isn't his turn), then when can we? -Paul
[2020-09-30 20:50:58] - aDaniel: Yes! I was actually thinking the same thing: that muting mics doesn't help in person, so the obvious solution is to have them in separate rooms. Heck, why not lean into COVID fully and make it a video conference so it is super easy to mute? -Paul
[2020-09-30 20:25:54] - sound proof booths? -Daniel
[2020-09-30 19:59:36] - sooooo . . . new proposal. when it's your turn not to talk, then they turn your mic WAY UP.
~a[2020-09-30 19:58:38] - daniel/paul: hmm, interesting counterpoint. muting the mics actually might make the problem worse. it won't stop trump from talking out of turn. "trying to talk clearly and confidently is harder when you’re listening to someone else talking to you, but if the audience can’t hear it, then it might just seem like [biden] is stumbling on his own, rather than being tripped up by the incessant whining of his opponent" ~a
[2020-09-30 19:40:57] - do you think that was his worst case of dereliction of duty? i do not. ~a
[2020-09-30 19:40:18] - ok. ~a
[2020-09-30 19:35:07] - "I won't answer the quesiton" is more than a little problematic, considering this is supposed to be a debate. - mig
[2020-09-30 19:32:21] - a: I dont agree on 3) I feel Wallace not calling the non answer out was a dereliction of duty on his part as moderator. - mig
[2020-09-30 19:13:35] - mig: "I was annoyed by the court packing question" ok i've rewatched that part of the debate like a dozen times now. i don't blame wallace or biden for that situation: 1. you're right that biden's beginning answer was problematic. but much more importantly: 2. trump. wouldn't. let. him. talk. he was yelling over him *then*. 3. if trump had shut the fuck up and let biden answer THEN wallace would be open to force an answer. ~a
[2020-09-30 19:00:01] - did everybody say "it's her turn" for clinton? i remember the primary being very contentious and very hotly debated. link. ~a
[2020-09-30 18:57:26] - It'll be "It's her turn" like it was for Clinton all over again. - mig
[2020-09-30 18:54:47] - daniel: there normally wouldn't be excitement for Harris but I think the identity politics cult is going to demand she be the nominee. - mig
[2020-09-30 18:27:28] - She's probably a lock to run. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 18:27:13] - I don't think Harris is a lock for 2024 if Biden doesn't run. I think she potentially starts with a leg up assuming the 4 years prior went well but I could still see a primary run. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 18:02:09] - why? i'm not terribly excited about harris, but she seems better than biden or trump. ~a
[2020-09-30 17:52:20] - Biden only going one term seems perilous for democrats. They're locking themselves into Harris for 2024 and that seems like not a good idea. - mig
[2020-09-30 17:35:09] - paul: nice find, thank you. ~a
[2020-09-30 17:34:26] - mig: i see the distinction, yes. but what's the effective difference? in both cases you can and do override and invalidate old sections/clauses (i.e. 60% of all other persons). ~a
[2020-09-30 17:31:05] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Maybe it is a reference to the 17th Amendment? -Paul
[2020-09-30 17:30:00] - It'd be helpful to understand the context of Blackburn's statement. - mig
[2020-09-30 17:29:54] - a: Right, I guess I should just stick to: I have no idea how the constitution addresses (or doesn't) the gender of senators and what is permitted and/or banned. -Paul
[2020-09-30 17:29:03] - a: not really? Are you rewriting something if you add a paragraph to it? Rewrite to me implies a complete start over from scratch. - mig
[2020-09-30 17:27:08] - let's get pedantic. amending is effectively the same as rewriting. it's the best example of a distinction without a difference that i've seen so far. ~a
[2020-09-30 17:26:01] - a: If I really wanted to be pedantic over the Jemele response, amending != rewriting. - mig
[2020-09-30 17:24:57] - need? no. it permits it and i think the constitution is correctly written on this topic. but, that is a change in topic. the topic was changes to the constitution regarding who could be senator. i.e. you said "rules saying women couldn't vote also made it so they couldn't be senator". i'm not sure if any changes have been made to the constitution in that respect. ~a
[2020-09-30 17:22:39] - a: Oh.... does the constitution need to protect her right to be a senator from state laws? Or just permit it? -Paul
[2020-09-30 17:21:44] - a: It feels like the equivalent of me saying "I have some concerns over the BLM movement" and the response being "You are a horrible racist nazi who wants all blacks to die". -Paul
[2020-09-30 17:21:35] - paul: "rules saying women couldn't vote also made it so they couldn't be senator" now i don't follow your argument. if such a rule existed, the 19th amendment wouldn't affect the "senator" part of that rule. worded differently, if a crazy state wanted to ban women from being senators in 2020, i'm not sure what part of the constitution (save the 14th amendment) would disallow it. ~a
[2020-09-30 17:18:17] - a: Yeah, that was one of the top responses for me when I saw it. I don't find it super compelling because it feels like a willful misrepresentation of the original point and needlessly escalating the conversation. It circles back around to this idea that any kind of deviation from the "accepted" viewpoints on a topic means you are the worse possible bigot or something. -Paul
[2020-09-30 17:15:30] - a: Not sure. Maybe the same rules saying women couldn't vote also made it so they couldn't be senator? I also wouldn't rely too heavily on accuracy and nuance from Jemele Hill... -Paul
[2020-09-30 17:13:41] - paul: i found this used as a "response" to the perry bible fellowship tweet you posted earlier: image. ~a
[2020-09-30 17:02:20] - https://i.redd.it/wus40w35jco51.jpg honest question: i understand why she wouldn't be able to vote (protecting women's right to vote amendment = 19), but what amendment protects her right to be senator? were the *costitutional* rules on who could be senator ever changed? the 14th amendment is the only thing i saw that was maybe close, but that seems like a stretch especially considering the time in which it was signed. ~a
[2020-09-30 16:41:50] - paul: i agree it is odd. i agree it isn't good or bad. johnson is the most recent president to choose not run for election (his case is doubly odd for two reasons: it would technically be a third term because he wasn't elected for the first term, he was announcing the "end" to vietnam at the same time) ~a
[2020-09-30 16:28:12] - Daniel: I guess it depends on your opinion of Biden (and who replaces him). Didn't mean to imply any good or bad to it, just something a little odd. -Paul
[2020-09-30 16:18:18] - Paul: Is it bad if Biden only goes one term? Somehow seems like an implication in your statement. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 16:06:02] - paul/xpovos: i know we're too early to be affected by the debate, but i did notice trump is polling worse today than he was yesterday. ~a
[2020-09-30 15:59:50] - Honestly, I think that's an unspoken kinda promise by Biden: That he will beat Trump and then step down after one term so Harris can get her shot. -Paul
[2020-09-30 15:59:09] - There have been plenty of videos shared where ether Biden or Harris slip up and call it a "Harris administration"... -Paul
[2020-09-30 15:43:05] - he/she is so close to "getting it". like . . . ~99% of the way there. ~a
[2020-09-30 15:33:26] - a: ha ha! that's very weird. that's like the kind of surprisingly precise and anomalous age you'd tell someone when you're four years old - aaron
[2020-09-30 15:21:00] - lol weird. carter is 95 years, 365 days old. i guess tomorrow is his birthday . . . and this is a leap year? so weird. ~a
[2020-09-30 15:17:03] - i stupidly looked at start of presidency, haha. ~a
[2020-09-30 15:16:36] - shit. ~
[2020-09-30 15:16:32] - reagan* - aaron
[2020-09-30 15:16:26] - a: ronald reagen was 77 at the end of his presidency, so it's 0 divided by 1 - aaron
[2020-09-30 15:15:46] - 0/0? ~a
[2020-09-30 15:15:24] - aaron: isn't it undefined? ~a
[2020-09-30 15:14:00] - a: yes, but based on historical statistics the chance of a US president dying between ages 77 and 85 is 0%
- aaron[2020-09-30 14:54:59] - mig: if he goes full senile (which i had always assumed trump would have reached by now but didn't), he'll step down voluntarily. IMO. ~a
[2020-09-30 14:44:51] - a: maybe but Biden does seem healthy? At least, he doesn't have any real ailments to be concerned about aside from having old man moments. - mig
[2020-09-30 14:31:37] - males about to turn 40 (everybody here?), you have a 96% chance of making it to 50! that's actually pretty high, so i guess that's not really interesting. ~a
[2020-09-30 14:20:48] - (not getting the cart before the horse but) i know we said this about pence, but harris has a real possibility of becoming president. the chance of a male dying between ages 77 and 85 is ~40% (though i think biden said he wouldn't run for reelection?). regardless, biden's death isn't the only way harris could become president. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:54:43] - mig: oh right, in addition to the things i mentioned in my other message, they also talked about veterans of foreign wars ("losers" and "suckers") and bo biden being a loser or a sucker and hunter biden being dishonorably discharged for drugs and crimea and barisma. arguably little of that is foreign policy, but it's at least foreign and/or policy. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:51:16] - I think Andrew and I are planning on watching as many as we can and recording our reactions, so you all can listen to those instead! -Paul
[2020-09-30 13:45:19] - very little that i can remember. they talked about russia and china but usually how it relates to voting and covid. they also briefly talked about north korea and iraq. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:43:55] - am i mistaken or was there no foreign policy discussion last night? - mig
[2020-09-30 13:39:03] - daniel: agreed. i'm def not watching any more. i'll watch at least some of the VP debate because i don't know much about harris. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:38:29] - a: Yeah I don't know that I'm planning on watching all the debates but I wanted to power through at least one. It wasn't super easy. I do feel like Trump spent almost as much time arguing with Wallace as Biden. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 13:36:17] - "trump turns debate into chaotic disaster" cnn "trump plunges debate into fiery squabbling" washingtonpost "biden and trump attacked each other in personal terms for more than 90 minutes" fox news. i've seen the word "unwatchable" multiple times and it is so true. i had to force-watch it like eating a vegetable i find distasteful. i constantly paused for a break. it reminded me of my first watch-through of seasons 1-4 of "the office". ~a
[2020-09-30 13:35:21] - paul: that is a good suggestion. - mig
[2020-09-30 13:34:50] - daniel: yeah, push to talk makes sense in THIS case. normally at least being able to mute seems important. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:34:25] - mig: i agree. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:34:08] - debates need to be push to talk where the moderator actively let someone talk. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 13:34:01] - a: I think wallace could have at least prodded a "why won't you answer the question?" It just felt like Wallace gave him a complete pass. - mig
[2020-09-30 13:33:25] - paul: next time around? some people are saying biden should stop going to the debates. i think biden doesn't renegotiate the "plans" for the debate, he's crazy. trump ignored all the rules constantly. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:32:19] - paul: yeah i saw that in your answer. it makes sense, i think i agree. not having an audience seems "fake" in my mind. i know logically that it is actually backwards, but its how i feel. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:32:17] - a: They really needed to have the ability to mute mics for awhile now. It will be completely inexcusable if they don't have it next time around. -Paul
[2020-09-30 13:31:26] - a: Oh! I think the audience kinda unfairly biases things. Like, if a campaign can sneak some loud cheering section into the hall to cheer or boo at the right time, it can bias the perception of others watching. It can also unfairly rattle one candidate or another. -Paul
[2020-09-30 13:26:56] - mig: i agree it was lame. but chris wallace let trump walk all over him, so i felt like he was constantly off balance because of that. though other than being harsher on trump, i'm not sure what chris wallace was expected to do. maybe with a cuttable mic, chris wallace would have had the wherewithal to be even *able* to push biden to answer? ~a
[2020-09-30 13:18:40] - paul: sorry yes. by "what is wrong with the audience?" i actually meant "what do you think is wrong with having the audience?" also, i was referring to twitter and i wasn't clear at all. ~a
[2020-09-30 13:11:22] - mig: I wish Biden was pressed a bit more about the court packing too, but I find it hard to blame Wallace, and Trump's comments (understandably) overshadowed Biden's. -Paul
[2020-09-30 13:05:02] - Daniel: "That is so insane to me" It isn't to me, but only because it's not surprising anymore. This isn't the first time he's pulled this, although maybe it is the first time he has been so explicit on such a widely viewed forum. The crazy thing is, he probably thinks in his mind that he DID denounce white supremacists. -Paul
[2020-09-30 13:03:21] - a: "what is wrong with the audience?" Actually, I was presently surprised by the audience. I really hate that debates have live audiences and feel like it sways things too much and wold prefer no audience. Felt like COVID was the perfect opportunity to do away with them. I was really impressed they were able to stay quiet. -Paul
[2020-09-30 11:27:25] - I was annoyed by the court packing question. "I'm not going to answer the question." And Wallace doesn't even press him even a tiny bit on it, leaving Trump to do so. That felt really lame. - mig
[2020-09-30 06:05:28] - It was a crazy moment where Trump was like yeah I totally could denounce white supremacy and Wallace was like ok do it! Then he didnt and instead went with the stand by thing. BLOWS MY MIND. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 06:03:53] - Its gotten a lot of play already but in real time I had a sit up and out loud WTF momemnt when Wallace pressed him to denouce white supremacy and the best he could do was "stand by". That is so insane to me. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 06:02:07] - I watched the debate. Thought it went about how I imagined a debate between them going. -Daniel
[2020-09-30 03:11:20] - paul: what is wrong with the audience? they didn't cheer or boo but i guess i'm surprised that was the case. there was some nonsense after the debate was over i guess. ~a
[2020-09-30 02:59:03] - yep. ~a
[2020-09-30 02:53:09] - "As a woman of color living in a town that was 82.4% white in the last census, I do not feel safe traveling by myself without my US passport or walking outside by myself at night." Is this racist? -Paul
[2020-09-30 02:52:55] - a: God, I hate taxes. I won't even bother trying to figure out how the ultra rich finagle their taxes. -Paul
[2020-09-30 02:09:50] - this debate is so hard to watch. i'm cringing the whole way through. who is this for? who finds this useful? I have to pause every 10 minutes because it's too much? ~a
[2020-09-29 20:38:13] - maybe its the blind trust thing. ~a
[2020-09-29 20:11:02] - what am i missing, paul? ~a
[2020-09-29 20:10:46] - wtf their dividends are also ~0 ($0 for biden and $1 for harris. $1?!) ~a
[2020-09-29 20:05:45] - biden is over 59.5, so i guess he mostly doesn't need a taxable account? i mean, i feel he does though. i don't get it. i guess maybe he lives a modest lifestyle? ~a
[2020-09-29 20:02:59] - biden and harris tax returns. what surprises me is they both have ~0 in capital gains. ($0 for biden, and -$149 for harris). i guess they might hold assets in non-pass-through corporations? still. it seems weird, right? ~a
[2020-09-29 19:57:08] - the push for re-opening is certainly not subtle but if the motivation was really for his businesses, the that would be subtle. - mig
[2020-09-29 19:54:32] - mig: i don't see *any* subtlety. the stupid state governors are preventing me from making money. i can stop this by badmouthing them and also telling them i'm going to force them to open. how does it get more unsubtle than that? ~a
[2020-09-29 19:52:47] - a: I think the main thing for me is that pushing for re-opening for the sake of his resorts is too subtle. He’s generally more overt about stuff like this. - mig
[2020-09-29 19:48:35] - paul: it's dwarfed by other stuff that republicans don't care about. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:48:12] - a: I mean, I guess on some level I care as well, but to me, it's kinda like finding out that Stalin cheated on his wife. Okay, that's bad, but isn't it dwarfed by some other stuff?
-Paul[2020-09-29 19:47:06] - mig: ok, you seem to be on the fence like i am? that he *probably* didn't want to open the economy because of his resorts. but only probably? ~a
[2020-09-29 19:45:48] - paul: both. he cheats on his taxes (this is looking more and more likely) and he is broke (this is looking more and more likely especially if you count the near future). i care about both of these things. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:44:58] - But Trump is also fucking weird so I can’t completely rule out he wanted to re-open solely for the benefit of his resorts. - mig
[2020-09-29 19:44:06] - Given the state of the economy pre-convid might have been the strongest case for his re-election, there’s plenty of reason to be for re-opening from an electoral politics perspective. - mig
[2020-09-29 19:43:45] - Can somebody explain the obsession (from all sides) over Trump's tax returns? I feel like almost no matter what we find out, it couldn't possibly rank top 20 on the list of negatives about Trump, and yet everybody is so super focused on proving.... something? That he cheats on taxes? That he is broke? I don't even know... -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:41:58] - a: No, that's exactly my point. I think there's a huge grey area which is arguably political to some (but not others) and activism to some (but not others). In my ideal world, most people wouldn't discuss politics in the workplace, but nobody would feel forbidden to do it regardless of their politics. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:41:50] - mig: i probably agree. but . . . why do you think this? ~a
[2020-09-29 19:41:15] - a: I don’t doubt at times Trump will do things in his capacity as president to benefit his personal businesses, I don’t think the re-opening issue is one of those times. - mig
[2020-09-29 19:36:41] - redact the rest. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:36:34] - https://i.redd.it/3gipxx6ts2q51.jpg he wouldn't even have to include the whole page! just the total and his signature. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:35:08] - paul: we probably should start calling it "parental leave", but maybe that gets to be too "activism" for you . . . some companies have paternity leave == maternity leave, which i find interesting, but don't necessarily disagree with. with the size of my company / makeup of my coworkers nobody has had any kids since 2010
~a[2020-09-29 19:25:35] - paul: maternity leave is a good real-world example of where people are expected to talk about that shit on the job. i'm sure i wouldn't fault anyone for saying "our maternity leave policy is bullshit". on the other hand, how would coinbase management respond to "our maternity leave policy is bullshit". would they be like fired on the spot? seems to be anti-laser-focused? ~a
[2020-09-29 19:23:50] - a: But if I took the opposite side, then that might be considered more of a political stance. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:23:14] - there were exceptions. i told a large group of people that i thought sarah palin was . . . unintelligent? they probably didn't like that. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:23:13] - a: I guess I am theorizing that it might be a combination of things. Like, a bunch of coworkers talking about how the company really needs to provide more maternity leave (or something along those lines) might not think of it as a "political discussion" (and as far as they go, it is pretty tame).... -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:22:14] - paul: understood. i'm surprised honestly. when i worked for a ~70% conservative company i was always fearful to tell people my opinions on anything. maybe i was just young, but i always kept my mouth shut. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:21:17] - a: I interned with the army a few summers, which I think was like 90% conservative, and while they sometimes shared their opinions, the 10% who were liberal there tended to be more outspoken and I've found that liberal coworkers in other jobs generally were more outspoken then them too. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:20:41] - paul: i would definitely not use the word WAY. there are so many "outliers" and "my experience" on both sides. but regardless, i'll at least agree that the left is probably slightly worse. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:19:53] - paul: its probably close, but in general, the left is probably more outspoken in terms of politics at work. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:19:47] - a: Because it has been my experience that the left is WAY more comfortable expressing their opinions at work, but obviously that's pretty anecdotal based on where I live and such. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:19:10] - a: Question: Do you think (in general, obviously, since I'm sure there are plenty of outliers) that one side (left or right) tends to be more outspoken in terms of politics at work? -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:17:20] - paul: nah. i doubt its because of our different political opinions. our political opinions aren't as different as you suggest, and i've historically worked for military companies / organizations: read, "very republican". nobody in a position of authority have ever discussed BLM with anyone in my experience. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:15:40] - "benefiting himself over the country" most of his followers will argue that trump winning the reelection will help the nation in a big way. i don't disagree with the logic of it. the other one (his real estate properties / businesses), gross. i honestly hope he didn't actually do this. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:14:21] - a: "has this happened to you?" Sure, all the time. I suspect part of it is our different political opinions, but I also think some of it is also what we consider "political opinions" (ie, the Black Lives Matter thing from before). -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:13:30] - "I don't think it is immoral to have color-blind hiring practices based on merit only. Others might think of a lack of affirmative action as immoral." agreed. me and the co-owner to my company use color-blind hiring practices. i obviously don't think that is immoral. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:11:56] - a: "but the personal reasons are less defensible" Eh, aren't they both personal reasons? I feel like both are about the same level of indefensible. They're both all about benefiting himself over the country (assuming re-opening the economy is the wrong move, which I think is still up in the air) -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:11:48] - paul: HOWEVER, sometimes when friends at work are talking politics though, i'll tell people how i personally feel, but i think they know i'm not speaking for the company. that's fine, right? ~a
[2020-09-29 19:11:40] - paul: "I know how it can feel to feel like political viewpoints are being forced on me by my employer and I wouldn't want to do that to others" i don't know how it feels. has this happened to you? regardless, i don't force political viewpoints on my coworkers and business partners, obviously. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:10:46] - a: So I can also see the justification for separation of politics and work. Does that mean companies should be doing all sorts of illegal and immoral things? No, and obviously there's a line which people are going to draw differently. I don't think it is immoral to have color-blind hiring practices based on merit only. Others might think of a lack of affirmative action as immoral. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:09:27] - a: So, the short answer is that I would love for all businesses to be politically involved in a libertarian way. But I also realize the downside to that, in that plenty of people aren't libertarian and may feel put out by that. I know how it can feel to feel like political viewpoints are being forced on me by my employer and I wouldn't want to do that to others. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:09:03] - "re-opening the economy is probably viewed as helping his re-election chances too" agreed. but the personal reasons are less defensible. ~a
[2020-09-29 19:08:08] - a: "if you're dealing logically, shouldn't it not matter how a message is delivered as to its merits?" 100% Unfortunately, I think we can all agree that many (most?) people don't really deal with politics logically. -Paul
[2020-09-29 19:07:29] - a: I'm sure re-opening the economy is probably viewed as helping his re-election chances too. -Paul
[2020-09-29 18:32:30] - paul: yeah, i like perry bible fellowship. it gets me thinking though, if you're dealing logically, shouldn't it not matter how a message is delivered as to its merits? ~a
[2020-09-29 18:00:34] - huh honestly something i hadn't considered. you can ignore the first paragraph as it can be summed up as "orange man bad". ~a
[2020-09-29 17:08:32] - a: Sorry, I will get to responding, but I also wanted to post this while it was on my mind (it is a series of a few pictures): https://twitter.com/PerryFellow/status/1310966993487568897/photo/1 -Paul
[2020-09-29 14:04:12] - "ignore social justice", sure. ok. but what about ignoring all things "activism"? like ignoring clean groundwater, and clean air, and workplace conditions, and worker health? the market doesn't always decide perfectly. it mostly does the right job most of the time, but sometimes it's ok giving a pass to a long history of illegal behaviors if there is a palatable explanation. sometimes there doesn't even need to be a explanation. ~a
[2020-09-29 13:48:37] - Formosa Plastics Corp if you want to read more. ~a
[2020-09-29 13:46:48] - paul: formosa has made no attempt to change or die. those aren't the only choices if you have a constant stream of money and desperate laborers. ~a
[2020-09-29 13:45:31] - paul: how far do you take that (first) argument? should laser-focus include immoral and illegal activities? because some apolitical laser-focused companies have a history of both. lots of ground pollution regulations are hard to enforce and chemical supply companies (for example, formosa) will resort to illegal activities. repeatedly. over long periods of time. unrepentantly. perpetually. ~a
[2020-09-29 13:45:14] - NFL talk: How the hell is Chicago 3-0 and Minnesota and Houston are 0-3? -Paul
[2020-09-29 13:41:49] - a: But if employees are upset over the callousness of it all and don't want to work there or make life difficult... then they'll have to change or die. -Paul
[2020-09-29 13:41:16] - a: I honestly don't know. I have heard really compelling arguments on both sides. I think what I come down to is each company should do what they think is best and the market decides. If coinbase can attract top talent with a laser focus on their mission and ignore social justice.... great! -Paul
[2020-09-29 13:39:34] - paul: ok. i'm not sure how i feel about it. i agree corporations should *mostly* be apolitical but i'm not sure being 100% apolitical leads to the least human suffering. should exxon care about air pollution? i believe they should, even if that's political. you agree? ~a
[2020-09-29 13:37:48] - a: Like, I get what you mean by interpreting the P/E ratio that way, and it makes some amount of sense, but I think it is one imperfect metric that can reflect a number of different things. And, frankly, it's a basically useless metric for a bunch of companies. -Paul
[2020-09-29 13:36:43] - a: I don't think I agree. I think the P/E ratio we're seeing now might have more to do with the risk/return ratio for stocks relative to things like treasuries and CDs (basically 0% return). -Paul
[2020-09-29 13:35:22] - a: https://www.coindesk.com/crypto-twitter-coinbase-corporate-activism You hear about the news coinbase made? -Paul
[2020-09-29 13:23:39] - paul: i'm not sure i agree. if *average* money was looking only at short term gains, the p/e ratio would be lower. do you agree? ~a
[2020-09-29 13:10:28] - a: Right. I guess my point is that most people (and money?) have a shorter time horizon. Day traders are just looking hour by hour (or minute by minute?). It seems like lots of the institutional money is looking quarter by quarter or maybe year by year based on things like price targets and reactions to quarterly earnings reports. -Paul
[2020-09-29 12:46:52] - paul: yes, i was looking at the p/e ratio of the whole stock market (currently 31), so some stocks will be longer and some will be shorter. sadly people aren't going to stop consuming tobacco or oil any time soon and the market is taking that into account. some cruise lines will not recover ever (one of them will surely declare bankruptcy) because of the current situation and the stock market needs to account for that as well. ~a
[2020-09-29 01:00:22] - a: I think some people are, but I think the vast majority isn't. Why else wouldn't companies like Altria be worth nothing, then? Why is Exxon still a $150 billion company? Why are cruise lines still down like 70%? I think there's a lot of short term bias to how the market works. Otherwise, they wouldn't react so strongly to earnings reports. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:44:50] - in theory? sure. i think the market is looking at the various odds of how things might turn out in ~25 years, like everybody else. ~a
[2020-09-28 20:42:15] - a: Probably greatly depends on the company, right? Probably hard to value something like an airline with traditional metrics when their business has dropped something like 90% (and in theory could rebound close to back to where it was within months if we were to get a vaccine or something). -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:41:46] - paul: you won't get any disagreement with me on hft. morons, the lot of them. ~a
[2020-09-28 20:40:39] - a: Sure. And considering the number of high frequency traders that are looking at timing things in seconds.... I think looking out years means you can find mispricings there. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:40:25] - paul: you implied that the market is using a timeframe of "NOW" and/or implied the market was looking at a timeframe of "next 12 months". looking at the shiller p/e ratio of the whole market, i can tell you it's looking further than "5+ years". ~a
[2020-09-28 20:39:57] - a: But does anybody think 5 years from now Disney will still be at half capacity for all their main cash drivers from COVID? I doubt most people do, which would make Disney a good value there. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:39:00] - Tesla is a bad example because its market cap is super out of whack right now, but look at something a little more stable like Disney. It lost like 45% of its value during the drop earlier this year. What was the market valuing Disney based on then? This year's results? Then that was still probably too high. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:36:33] - paul: people do have different time frames, i agree. the time frame of "the market" is going to be a *weighted* average of everybody's time-frames
~a[2020-09-28 20:34:00] - a: "everybody is valuing what the company will be worth" Yeah, but will be worth WHEN? That's the key thing. It's like when we were talking about Ford (or was it JC Penney?) and how we both agreed that everybody knows the company is going to zero, so then why is it >0 now? People have different time frames. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:11:52] - paul: nah, everybody is valuing what the company will be worth. or the P/E ratio of EVERY company would be ~5 otherwise. P/E ratio for tesla is 1000+. that's 1000 years, unless people are trying to determine what the company WILL be worth in the future. ~a
[2020-09-28 20:11:04] - "I can't say" important difference. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:10:47] - I am just speculating on what it might be worth 5+ years from now. I don't have to worry about the day to day gyrations in the meantime or worry about beating the market week to week. So, yeah, I can say I will be right about Tesla over the next 12 months, but I think I will be much further down the line. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:09:34] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/musk-tesla-may-be-overvalued-today-but-i-think-itll-be-worth-more-in-5-years.html Completely off topic, but it occurs to me that this is another reason why I think individual investors with a long time horizon can "beat the market". I am not trying to be smarter than people about what a company is worth NOW. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:05:10] - "It's one of those things that is almost certainly better than what we have now" ohhhh, ok then it's 3v0 so far on ubi. what do we win? ~a
[2020-09-28 20:04:04] - a: I can argue against it. I'm honestly undecided. It's one of those things that is almost certainly better than what we have now, but I really worry that the ideal of it cannot be implemented. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:03:11] - a: Eh, nevermind. I don't think you all like my analogies anyway and this one isn't even a terribly compelling one. -Paul
[2020-09-28 20:02:57] - we can go 2v2 on ubi if you're against it. ~a
[2020-09-28 20:02:15] - paul: it's 3v1, miguel is against a wealth tax. (i assume) ~a
[2020-09-28 20:01:34] - the rock should give some of his popularity to the less popular. or maybe we can have universal basic popularity instead? ~a
[2020-09-28 20:01:06] - a: Sorry, I didn't mean the belabor any points. But why is it mean for it to be 2 v 1 now when it is always 2 v 1 against me.
-Paul[2020-09-28 20:00:58] - paul: popularity gap? ~a
[2020-09-28 20:00:32] - But from a higher level, I guess I just see the wealth as so connected to the business he has created (and so disconnected from any harm I have suffered) that the criticism doesn't make much sense to me. It's like being jealous of The Rock for being so popular (while I am not). -Paul
[2020-09-28 19:59:44] - i've pushed daniel hard enough, now maybe we can convince him that UBI is a better idea. what do you think paul, can we convince him? (
) ~a[2020-09-28 19:59:11] - So that was kinda my practical argument against it. -Paul
[2020-09-28 19:58:45] - A company like Amazon is always evolving. It started off as an online bookseller and now it sells everything AND makes hardware and has a cloud business. At any step, if Bezos was "taxed out", then those other branches might not exist. -Paul
[2020-09-28 19:55:59] - Maybe, because he seems to be passionate about reducing fossil fuels, but I think others might not be. Also, as I mentioned before about Bezos, it doesn't have to be binary. Maybe he starts Amazon but as it gets bigger, he has to sell shares until he only owns like 5% of it or something. Does he still have the passion to make it bigger? Or does he retire to do something else? -Paul
[2020-09-28 19:54:39] - (1) I don't think taking half of Bezos' wealth (or whatever percent) would necessarily stop him from trying to make Amazon, but I think it overall dampens investment in stuff like it. Maybe a better example is Musk after Paypal. Would he have bothered with Tesla knowing that he was risking his entire wealth and the gain was effectively zero? -Paul
[2020-09-28 19:52:55] - i read the ny times article too, but because its behind a paywall, i can't go back to it. pretty sure most people are reporting 421m in personal debts: the irs thing is in addition to that. ~a
[2020-09-28 19:52:49] - Sorry I missed so much. I got pulled away earlier and wasn't able to finish my thoughts. I haven't read over everything I missed, but just wanted to give a really short finish to what I started writing before: -Paul
[2020-09-28 19:38:54] - a: I thought it was 300m of personal debt and ~100m of potential debt to US Gov if he loses his audit. I didn't read about 1b in personal debt but I only read the one really long NYT original article on it. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 18:59:55] - did we just learn that trump holds ~1b in personal debt? or .4b in personal debt and somehow we get to 1b i'm not sure how. that seems kinda high considering how low his assets are. his debt to income ratio seems like he might be a debt risk. i assume his security clearance wouldn't have been approved if he had obtained it the "normal" way. ~a
[2020-09-28 18:47:19] - daniel: "Does a failed economic state need to exist in order to provide consequence?" define "failed economic state"? (probably, regardless of your definition, though) no, not in my opinion. i think ubi would be fine if you got rid of snap/ebt-card. ~a
[2020-09-28 18:25:47] - Mainly just thinking about coming around to wondering about UBI as it relates to the wealth gap and if that helps to make things sufficient. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 18:25:14] - oof double post. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 18:25:02] - So if poverty is simply defined as the percent of median spending perhaps its not the word I'm looking for. Does a failed economic state need to exist in order to provide consequence? So like would a UBI cause all the problems that people fear or would providing a base line existence be better in terms of net happiness by avoiding things like hunger / not being able to go to doctor / etc. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 18:24:59] - So if poverty is simply defined as the percent of median spending perhaps its not the word I'm looking for. Does a failed economic state need to exist in order to provide consequence? So like would a UBI cause all the problems that people fear or would providing a base line existence be better in terms of net happiness by avoiding things like hunger / not being able to go to doctor / etc. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 18:06:22] - daniel: "is the presence of poverty / homelessness / hunger a required state in the world in order to provide consequence for failure / laziness?" i deny the assumption in the question, that poverty has a purpose. also deny the assumption in the question, that poverty can be defined inherently. don't we currently define poverty as a percentage of the median spending, i mean like what? yes . . . it's like required by definition? ~a
[2020-09-28 18:02:21] - daniel: basically, the idea of a luxury tax. anything that costs over $X million has another tax on it. "A luxury tax is a sales tax or surcharge levied only on certain products or services that are deemed non-essential or accessible only to the super-wealthy. The luxury tax may be charged ... as a percentage of the amount above a specified level" ~a
[2020-09-28 18:00:43] - As another facet of this perhaps is the presence of poverty / homelessness / hunger a required state in the world in order to provide consequence for failure / laziness? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:59:49] - daniel: well, no, i think 100b is bad. you've already sold me on that. its how we "solve" that problem where we strongly disagree. i can propose more though! progressive sales-tax, progressive property-tax. sales tax (including closing costs on houses and when buying/selling cars), and property taxes, can be progressive. we mostly never make them progressive and i'm not sure why. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:59:39] - a: I imagine it would have to be something that was debated and figured out over time. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:57:16] - a: I don't know. Thats why I was throwing out numbers earlier in the wealth tax portion of the discussion. I thought something absurdly high like 100b would be an easier sell but NOPE. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:55:55] - daniel: "Some level of wealth gap is acceptable" how much wealth gap is acceptable? (this question is to myself as well. i agree with your statement, but i'm not sure where to draw the line) ~a
[2020-09-28 17:52:27] - Well I would have to think more about any wealth gap is bad statement. Some level of wealth gap is acceptable is probably better. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:51:54] - I don't think ANY wealth gap is bad. I think our level of wealth gap is bad and that it is increasing. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:51:23] - a: Yes. I've agreed to that and said its a spectrum several times. I don't think we are near the absurd end at all though. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:50:39] - a: At a certain point sure, cause eventually it would just become communism which I've already agreed is bad. So I think that extreme is bad, but I think we are super far from that extreme and much closer to Miguels version where its maximized capitalism which I think also has its issues. So I don't think taking all of Bezo's checking account is good. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:47:54] - daniel: reductio ad absurdum: everybody should get the same pay. you need to stop somewhere, right? ~a
[2020-09-28 17:46:46] - daniel: i don't think it's mean spirited or uncaring. it's a different perspective. i think taking money directly out of bezos's checking account and paying extra snap-card benefits has a detrimental effect at a certain point don't you? you agree that taking money out of bezos's checking statement and handing it to panhandlers in the street or building libraries would eventually stop being a good idea? ~a
[2020-09-28 17:42:32] - a: The point being that focusing on Bezos' opportunity while ignoring those that are failing to make ends meet seems like a position that is mean spirited? uncaring? to those that need help. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:38:56] - a: It would depend on why / how he doubled / halved his wealth to determine the impact on the those at the bottom of the wealth gap. There are certainly ways it can change without impacting them true. There are ways it could change that certainly would impact them. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:34:20] - daniel: "And those people on the bottom of the wealth gap? They are just left there and we can look at them and say well they had a chance but now because they missed / messed up / failed their chance they're screwed?" if bezos doubles or halves his wealth that doesn't change the happiness of the people in poverty. "the belief that someone having lots of money somehow makes everyone else's lives worse": i also reject this argument. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:32:59] - a: Which first message? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:30:29] - Maximized is a strong word. An individuals maximized opportunity seems to inherently conflict with the notion of public good. Like 0 taxes would be the maximum opportunity. I care about whether people's economic opportunities are sufficient and would balance it against the public good. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:29:29] - daniel: i don't agree with your first message. miguel is right, bezos's changes in wealth don't make the life of a person in poverty any better or worse. but, i agree with your second message. if wealth gap gets above a certain threshold, governments destabilize. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:27:56] - mig: Doesn't that just lead to the French Revolution eventually? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:27:33] - mig: And those people on the bottom of the wealth gap? They are just left there and we can look at them and say well they had a chance but now because they missed / messed up / failed their chance they're screwed? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:21:55] - mig: i could also get behind embracing the gig economy. but as someone who's almost hit by uber drivers, while i'm on my bike, on a constant basis, i'm not sure i'll be as anti-regulation as you wan me to be. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:21:12] - mig: i could get behind scaling back occupational licensing, honestly. but you'll have a harder time convincing me to scale back air pollutant regulations or water pollutant regulations. i assume you'r FOR getting rid of those? ~a
[2020-09-28 17:20:49] - Embrace the gig economy instead of trying to kill it (looking at you california). - mig
[2020-09-28 17:19:50] - a: how much time do you have? the TL:DR is less regulations that make it hard for people to create their own businesses. A starter for something specific is massively scaling back occupational licensing. - mig
[2020-09-28 17:13:04] - mig: how do you propose maximizing people's economic opportunities? ~a
[2020-09-28 17:12:59] - mig: i don't think someone having lots of money makes everyone else's lives worse. i DO think someone having lots of money is commonly paired with everyone else's lives being worse. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:11:50] - This is kind of predicated on the belief that someone having lots of money somehow makes everyone else's lives worse, and argument I reject completely. - mig
[2020-09-28 17:11:02] - a: I care more about whether people's economic opportunities are maximized whether than worrying about whether some people have an arbitrarily deemed "bad" level of money. - mig
[2020-09-28 17:06:22] - mig: you don't think any level of wealth gap is bad? can i make an argument absurdum? ~a
[2020-09-28 17:05:48] - daniel: I don't believe the wealth gap is bad. - mig
[2020-09-28 17:05:31] - daniel: you can't get wealth without income. unless i have some major logical flaw here. changing the laws can even "fix" most grandfathered-wealth, i.e. capital gains taxes. bezos holds 80% of his wealth in one single stock and his cost-basis is basically zero. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:03:36] - daniel: they are separate things of course! if bezos actually paid taxes on his income (because the laws were different), i.e. the laws on deductions/etc were curbed, he wouldn't have $200b. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:02:18] - daniel: income tax, capital gains, estate tax, property tax, increase them all at the highest brackets, make them all progressive as fuck. you can get me behind all of these ideas. ~a
[2020-09-28 17:02:01] - Why do you think income tax addresses wealth? Isn't the whole point of this that they are separate things? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:01:09] - So other than a tax what means does a gov have to deal with unlimited wealth? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 17:01:07] - "I don't think an income tax addresses those issues" why? ~a
[2020-09-28 17:00:44] - I think the wealth gap is a problem and thats its a problem that only gets worse as globalization continues and capitalisms grows. I don't think an income tax addresses those issues. So then the idea of a wealth tax springs from that point. So if there are alternatives that work towards that goal that would be good. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 16:59:16] - yes and yes. ~a
prev <-> next