prev <-> next
[2020-10-29 15:33:28] - a: Yeah, I tend to mentally adjust zillow prices down like 10%. Zillow is like 20% higher than Redfin for my house. It's interesting because I would think Redfin would be, if anything, even more incentivized to fudge the numbers upward based on business model. -Paul
[2020-10-29 14:49:35] - never trust zillow prices
~a[2020-10-29 14:49:15] - gotcha. ~a
[2020-10-29 14:49:04] - a: it's a corner house and it's signficantly bigger than most of the homes on the block. - mig
[2020-10-29 14:48:27] - ah yah. the house that sold across from you might have something in it like an extra bathroom or something. ~a
[2020-10-29 14:47:54] - redfin says 377k for mine, though. - mig
[2020-10-29 14:47:48] - huh, yeah probably right then. ~a
[2020-10-29 14:47:28] - a: redfin says $460k. - mig
[2020-10-29 14:45:41] - mig: what does redfin say? ~a
[2020-10-29 14:45:24] - paul: zillow lists my house at $433k, which seems a little high, but the house across from me sold for $460k (according to zillow), so it might be accurate? - mig
[2020-10-29 14:43:22] - the (unsubsidized) cost of wind energy has recently dropped. surprisingly this is tied with an increase in green energy stock prices. maybe with the lower costs, earnings can be larger? ~a
[2020-10-29 14:21:16] - paul: "it would be nice". sure, of course it would be nice. . . . so, my experience . . . i tried to sell my apartment in 2015 and was very disappointed by how terribly wrong zillow was. since 2015, i prefer to ignore zillow prices (and use redfin instead) because i'd appreciate the truth to lies
~a[2020-10-29 14:18:05] - a: Yeah, Redfin usually seems more conservative and less volatile, which I actually appreciate, even though it would be nice if Zillow was right.
-Paul[2020-10-29 13:53:41] - in my area, zillow estimates always seems more volatile (and just plain wrong) compared to redfin estimates. ~a
[2020-10-29 13:52:27] - According to Zillow, my zip code is projected to have a "7.3% 1-year forecasted value increase" for homes. That seems.... aggressive? -Paul
[2020-10-28 22:37:00] - Of course, yes but you pay taxes on savings account interest as well. The principle is inflation protected (which your savings account very much is not so . . . sort of? ~a
[2020-10-28 20:08:33] - a: I don't know a lot about TIPS so I would have to l look. Are there tax implications if you sell? If there interest rate is better than online savings I'd take a look at least. -Daniel
[2020-10-28 20:07:56] - My emergency fund is in an online savings account. Its probably more conservative than we "need"* but with two kids, a house, two cats, two cars, and a risk adverse Andrea its where we settled. -Daniel
[2020-10-28 18:53:18] - paul: nah there is no minimum 5 year timeframe in the stock market. see vipsx or vtapx or vtip or spip or tip. ~a
[2020-10-28 18:51:09] - a: I would rather just keep the money liquid in cash and get no return rather than... what is the return right now? I guess it varies? -Paul
[2020-10-28 18:50:42] - a: I guess I am turned off by the minimum 5 year time frame. That doesn't work as an emergency fund unless you have a really long ladder set up, and then it feels like you are still stuck in them for a long time. I still have money in my CD ladder (last one matures next month) even though rates have been crap for months. -Paul
[2020-10-28 18:04:35] - daniel/paul: we talk about "emergency funds" here a lot. any thoughts on TIPS? "TIPS holding is a good investment for one who believes inflation will be higher than the market expectation ... but not if one thinks inflation to be lower than expected". in other words, the dividends of tips float around based on future expectation of inflation and interest rates. thoughts? ~a
[2020-10-28 17:20:46] - a: I wondered that too. Props to him though. -Daniel
[2020-10-28 17:08:05] - where the fuck did jonathan swan come from? he seemingly appeared out of nowhere, and has high profile interviews with cruz and trump where he deftly and subtly walks all over them. i think its his timing i love the best . . . he sugarcoats nothing, but also is never misleading in his statements/questions. ~a
[2020-10-28 16:42:50] - yet another cyclist . . . pretty long video (10 minutes, I watched it at 1.5x). you don't need to watch the whole thing, you can probably get the gist in the first half. "it's exhausting"
I definitely fall into these traps on occasion but I do try to see all people as "people" regardless of their behaviors. ~a[2020-10-27 16:56:38] - paul: "I wonder if Tesla tends to have 'riskier' drivers when it comes to autopilot" mmmm, i don't buy it. probably fewer alcoholics/stoners/sociopaths . . . it's a 35-85k car when the median personal income is 33k/year. regardless though, i agree a tesla owner is unrepresentative of the population. ~a
[2020-10-27 16:42:27] - a: Sure, and because autopilot might tend to be more highway, I'm guessing their pedestrian deaths are low too. I wonder if Tesla tends to have "riskier" drivers when it comes to autopilot. I've seen lots of videos of people sitting in their backseat or pretending to take a nap or whatever else which is clearly against the instructions for autopilot. -Paul
[2020-10-27 15:21:08] - paul: "Since Autopilot is currently primarily used on highways where it’s easier to accumulate a lot of mileage without accidents and non-Autopilot mileage is coming from city driving, where accidents are more likely, the two datasets can not really be compared" i guess tesla is probably not releasing all the information then. tesla probably knows which miles are highway and which are city. ~a
[2020-10-27 15:16:09] - paul: miles per crash is just one metric, but i guess that's pretty cool. how are they doing on miles per fatality or miles per pedestrian fatality? as i understand it they've had a fair number of recent fatalities (maybe not autopilot). i know the well-known 2018 pedestrian fatality wasn't tesla, it was uber: death of Elaine Herzberg ~a
[2020-10-27 14:14:15] - Daniel: At least all my losses were against platinum... so I can't feel too bad. -Paul
[2020-10-27 14:13:57] - Daniel: I've been watching them and they have been helpful. A few losses were me panicking and being an idiot (stubbornly sticking to roaches and hydras against shield batteries set up outside my base with immortals instead of shifting to swarm hosts or brood lords). The others I think I just didn't handle harass properly and lost too many workers. -Paul
[2020-10-27 14:12:50] - a: https://electrek.co/2020/10/26/tesla-autopilot-accident-data-report-showing-slight-improvement/ Some evidence Tesla's autopilot is safer than human drivers now. -Paul
[2020-10-27 13:40:17] - paul: Oof sorry. Vibe's b2gm is something to think about. Its not be all end all but gives some good fundamentals to keep in mind. Other than that sometimes the matching algorithm just decides it hates you. -Daniel
[2020-10-27 03:54:22] - I just played like 7 games of 1v1 tonight and got absolutely destroyed in 6 of them and barely won the 7th despite being outproduced most of the game. Man, do I suck. -Paul
[2020-10-26 18:02:45] - yep! ~a
[2020-10-26 18:02:29] - a: Does Thursday work? -Paul
[2020-10-26 17:55:13] - i can't play tonight, sorry! if you wanna play xonotic though, i'll get you an invite
~a[2020-10-26 17:54:41] - SC2 tonight? -Paul
[2020-10-26 16:49:42] - i'll post here once its up on the website. ~a
[2020-10-26 16:33:00] - awwww it's over. nm. ~a
[2020-10-26 16:31:08] - Wamu is discussing the tj admissions debate right now. ~a
[2020-10-23 14:45:24] - a: Probably have to be aimed at least a little higher. The two best ideas I have are slightly more complicated. -Paul
[2020-10-23 14:19:28] - will it be targeted for teens? i don't have any teenaged children, i'm just curious. ~a
[2020-10-23 14:17:25] - a: Maybe I should start working on book 2? -Paul
[2020-10-23 14:17:09] - a: Yay! Go celebrate and buy a copy for a friend!
-Paul[2020-10-23 13:10:29] - paul: your book anniversary is today. ~a
[2020-10-23 03:48:24] - a: One of my major takeaways with this election, at least, is how much of it is (surprisingly to me) a reaction to what the left has been doing. Lots of people are a little uncomfortable with the rioting and demonization of law enforcement and other stuff going on. -Paul
[2020-10-23 03:46:09] - a: I don't usually talk politics with them either, but it does tends to come up, and so I often hear the logic. Sometimes I totally get it. Sometimes it seems bonkers. -Paul
[2020-10-23 02:50:04] - paul: im sure most people have family and friends that voted for trump. i often can't / don't talk politics with my family and friends who voted for trump so as to avoid certain unpleasantness. this reddit sub on the other hand help's me actually see the logic of their positions. ~a
[2020-10-23 01:20:34] - a: The worst thing I can say about a lot of them are that they might have a blind spot for their own side and are too quick to assume the worst of the other side. -Paul
[2020-10-23 01:19:37] - a: And obviously this predates Trump back to GWB and earlier. So it's not hard for me to believe that not all (or even not most) Trump supporters are ignorant bigots and racists, and likewise not all (or most) liberals are godless communist heathens. -Paul
[2020-10-23 01:17:39] - a: It sometimes feels as if I am in an oddly unique position where I have really close friends and family that I both like and respect that (I assume) voted for Trump and also really close friends and family that I both like and respect that completely hate his guts. -Paul
[2020-10-22 21:53:43] - a: I did not know of the site, but I applaud you reading it and your takeaway. One thing I am very convinced of is that, for the partisans on each side, the "other" side isn't nearly as evil as they are sometimes made out to be. -Paul
[2020-10-22 19:10:16] - i know nobody will be surprised by this, but the highest profile twitter account in the world wasn't using 2-factor authentication. i'm surprised that twitter wasn't like, hey whitehouse, can you put 2fa on his phone for him? ~a
[2020-10-22 17:38:08] - it doesn't change my opinion of trump, but it does make me often question my opinion of trump supporters. they support trump, but they, at least some of them, have pragmatic/moderate view of the world that isn't far off from mine. some of them do seem to be living with some cognitive dissonance. but, i have a share of my own when i consider voting for any of the presidential candidates. ~a
[2020-10-22 17:38:07] - i'd like to point out a subreddit i've been reading on and off the last few years, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/ . . . its an interesting place where non-supporters ask questions, only trump supporters are allowed to respond, and then all follow-up questions *must* be questions. its a place where the opinion of non-supporters is strictly forbidden. (though leading questions / socratic method are very common). ~a
[2020-10-22 14:12:11] - "the media is not only plugging their ears and trying to ignore it" completely false. yeah, maybe if you count facebook and twitter in the list of the "media" you'd have an argument. but to say the media is plugging their ears and trying to ignore it . . . i must consume much more conservative media than you do. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:10:55] - a: And if the FBI is looking at it, great! It just seems like the media is not only plugging their ears and trying to ignore it, but we're also seeing social media actively suppressing it (even if it was a possibly trashy piece by the NY Post). I feel like we would be seeing a very different reaction if it was the Trump family. -Paul
[2020-10-22 14:10:20] - i'm kinda sick of hearing about it. this cursory glance isn't cursory enough. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:09:59] - it warrants a cursory glance, but didn't we pass cursory glance months ago? ~a
[2020-10-22 14:09:05] - a: I just want to be clear: I don't necessarily think there's anything inherently wrong with Hunter getting the board seat even if it was like 90% based on his father's name. Political connections are, unfortunately, important. But with a bunch of hysteria right now about Russia and them influencing the election, this kind of connection seems like it warrants a cursory glance. -Paul
[2020-10-22 14:08:44] - also hyperbole. sorry, maybe i should have left that one out of the list. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:08:26] - also it isn't something a lobbyist would normally agree to. again, doing shit like that nonstop is kinda their whole job. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:07:48] - it wasn't a verbal agreement, it was a relationship confirmed by a third party. would i be satisfied? no, because the situation is completely different. (the trumps aren't allowed to operate a charity in new york for good reason.) and they wouldn't even make such an agreement to begin with. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:05:17] - a: Not trying to be a jerk... but is that it? A verbal agreement involving the two involved parties? Would you be satisfied if Trump had a agreement where he wouldn't ask Ivanka about her lobbying clients, and Ivanka wouldn't tell her father about them? -Paul
[2020-10-22 14:04:19] - "do you really think he was put on the board because of his personal experience? or his last name?" i honestly feel its both. not sure which its more of, but i kinda don't care. again its just a board seat. they give that to pretty much anybody they think would be a good fit. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:02:53] - paul: well, ok, there is an element of hyperbole here, so please read this generously. here's the story i was referring to. according to the new yorker, hunter and his father established a relationship in which joe biden "wouldn't ask hunter about his lobbying clients, and hunter wouldn't tell his father about them". again, hyperbole, but that seems above and beyond what most lobbyists are constantly doing. ~a
[2020-10-22 14:01:01] - a: Does he have any experience with oil companies? Let alone Ukraine? Do you really think he was put on the board because of his personal experience? Or his last name? If you had the exact same resume, do you think you would get the offer? -Paul
[2020-10-22 14:00:08] - a: "he's probably the only registered lobbyist in history that wasn't constantly breaking ethics laws" Wait, how do you figure this? -Paul
[2020-10-22 13:59:20] - a: "isn't there a complete lack of even-handedness here? (more-so, isn't there some hypocrisy here when the president talks about it?)." Just because the Trump family does similar things (or even worse) doesn't mean Biden is fine. They can both be bad and sketchy. -Paul
[2020-10-22 13:49:33] - paul: i'd hazard to say he's over qualified to be on the damn board of an oil company. he wasn't their fucking ceo. ~a
[2020-10-22 13:49:13] - paul: more-so again: "seemingly no qualifications" is something that seems to be a bit biased already. i've read hunter's wikipedia article, and he was the vice president of a major bank, he worked for the united states department of commerce, he's probably the only registered lobbyist in history that wasn't constantly breaking ethics laws, he started a lobbying firm, what ukranian oil company wouldn't *love* to hire him? ~a
[2020-10-22 13:42:08] - paul: "being on the board of a Ukrainian oil company despite seemingly no qualifications for it seems pretty sketchy" isn't there a complete lack of even-handedness here? (more-so, isn't there some hypocrisy here when the president talks about it?). ~a
[2020-10-22 13:32:51] - a: Yeah, I guess maybe that was a bad example because it actually seems reasonable to expect there ARE a ton of powerful people who were involved. I guess considering that.. is it unreasonable to assume Hunter Biden was involved? Is this how the descent into QANON madness begins? -Paul
[2020-10-21 20:09:26] - paul: gotcha, ok. i didn't even consider that one specifically. i believe the epstein pedophile ring probably included a lot of powerful people, so maybe put me in that group? probably not musk (probably not clinton, probably not trump) though. ~a
[2020-10-21 20:06:07] - a: Sorry, good point, I should clarify. It's become a bit popular among some people to basically tie anybody who has ever been seen in a photo with Epstein to a pedophile ring (happened with Elon Musk, I think). I was more referring to that. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and there really WAS a hugely wide reaching ring that tons of people are involved in. -Paul
[2020-10-21 18:28:40] - paul: "Epstein style conspiracies" weird analogy . . . not sure which conspiracy you mean, but both are weird. ~45% (i saw polls with 42 and 45) of americans think epstein was murdered. ~99% of americans think epstein was part of a literal pedophile conspiracy ring. my guess is that less than 1% of americans think hunter is involved in a pedophile ring (polls say 3% have read a lot about it). 45% vs 1%?
~a[2020-10-21 18:23:41] - a: I have no idea. Sorry. I haven't been following the story much. I know one the crazier ideas (maybe QANON related?) is that the emails show some sort of pedophile ring that Hunter is involved in, but my guess is that is completely without merit and probably just one of those random Epstein style conspiracies. -Paul
[2020-10-21 18:20:03] - oh i guess it's a dude, not a lady, my bad. ~a
[2020-10-21 18:18:50] - "Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure" even if joe biden met with this lady, what does it all mean? ~a
[2020-10-21 18:16:08] - paul: "it doesn't really seem like anybody is interested in digging into it except the NY Post" doesn't the fbi currently hold the "laptop" with the "emails"? i mean, it sounds like the fbi is interested in digging into this. jeeze, can someone catch me up on the emails? the emails say what exactly? ~a
[2020-10-21 18:14:12] - Pierce: But when we know that something like 90% of journalists lean left and that when I see the mania among many people (including many journalists) on social media regarding the outcome of this election, it doesn't at all seem like a stretch to think that the media might be biased against finding any dirt on the candidate they view as being the savior from Trump. -Paul
[2020-10-21 18:12:40] - Pierce: Maybe it's all completely above board! And maybe somebody has looked into it and cleared it. I have no idea, but the amount of silence and active censorship of it by social media companies just makes me think that maybe people don't want to look into it. -Paul
[2020-10-21 18:10:42] - Pierce: I can't really speak to the details of the Hunter Biden story because, as mentioned, it doesn't really seem like anybody is interested in digging into it except the NY Post. But from the surface, the circumstances of him being on the board of a Ukrainian oil company despite seemingly no qualifications for it seems pretty sketchy. -Paul
[2020-10-21 18:02:58] - Pierce: How is Tara Reade a "shitty story"? Or, maybe the better question is: how is it a shittier story than Christine Blasey Ford? Biden is just as important a political figure as Kavanaugh. Both involved credible accusations of sexual assault. If anything, Reade's accusation is buttressed by the fact that there is plenty of other evidence Biden is a bit of a creep with women. -Paul
[2020-10-21 17:23:10] - and so here we are spilling ink (well, pixels) on shit like this yet again when there are far more substantiated stories out there where we don't have to give the authors a bunch of benefit of the doubt. - pierce
[2020-10-21 17:19:27] - it's tara reade (which we already exhaustively discussed a few months ago, we don't need to rehash the "but I thought we're supposed to believe women" thing). it's benghazi. it's the email server. for once it seems like there's resistance to these tactics, so now it's "why are we being censored omg the media and tech giants are colluding with the deep state" - pierce
[2020-10-21 17:19:01] - bleh. it's all just falling into the same traps over and over. make a shitty story, accuse the mainstream media of liberal bias until they boost the signal for you. all it takes is for the story to have a crumb of truth or to feel really truthy without being wholly disprovable. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:56:24] - why do we have to do their work for them? they have the emails, they should be able to confirm a lot of the small details from public info, without relying solely on vague statements from unnamed sources. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:55:47] - all of the reporting you've linked about this story (as well as the original nypost story itself) leaves it to the reader to fill in the gaps between the actual confirmed facts and the broader accusations against joe biden, and to explain away or disregard the fishy aspects. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:48:18] - anonymous sources are mostly fine if you can get specifics from them, but using them for vague shit like this is usually just letting the administration (any administration) launder their spin. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:48:12] - and seriously, what's with these anonymous sources? the new fox article repeats the problematic sourcing I talked about last night ("the big guy" etc). and adds that "another senior federal law enforcement official" said the emails were authentic... does that mean all the emails? what's this person's role in the investigation? how were the emails authenticated? - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:48:02] - the quote from the "senior intelligence official" with the snipe at schiff has no place in a story about the laptop. if the article was centrally about schiff it'd be different, but then you'd expect detail about what schiff said rather than just an aside. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:47:52] - the "sorry, adam schiff" link is still really shitty reporting. first off, let's be specific: fox's sources are not denying that the laptop is part of a foreign disinfo campaign, they're denying that it's a russian disinfo campaign. maybe they intend the more broad interpretation but we shouldn't make that leap for them. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:47:41] - you may not like how the allegations themselves have been covered, but the story about the origin of the dossier is absolutely straightforward and believable. - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:47:33] - the steele dossier is not comparable. its origin is not fishy. it was standard opposition research, executed by a known credible person in the intelligence world, and was presented as "raw intelligence", a starting point for further investigation rather than 100% substantiated fact (and has held up pretty well to scrutiny given that caveat). - pierce
[2020-10-21 16:32:47] - someone tell pierce that he has 15 messages waiting for him on the message board . . . ?
~a[2020-10-21 13:41:42] - Washington Post has one: "FBI: ‘Nothing to add’ to Ratcliffe remarks about Hunter Biden", which seems to be more about the controversy surrounding the controversy. Hard to believe that if there was this much smoke around one of Trump's sons that it wouldn't be bigger news. -Paul
[2020-10-21 13:39:48] - 's front page and there are no instances of the word "Hunter" anywhere. -Paul
[2020-10-21 13:39:34] - I just did a search on CNN
[2020-10-21 13:38:31] - Pierce: There's plenty of fishy behavior around the Trumps, and there's been plenty of ink spilled about them. Great. There's also plenty of fishy stuff going on around Hunter Biden (beyond whatever this NY Post story says) and I don't think I've read a single CNN or other major media piece that has looked into it. -Paul
[2020-10-21 13:37:06] - Pierce: "you seem to be operating under the assumption that good journalism means that each candidate gets equal coverage of topics that might hurt them, no matter the quantity or quality of those claims" No, I am operating under the assumption that journalists who are trying to be objective should be investigating leads for politicians on both sides. -Paul
[2020-10-21 13:35:46] - "accused by someone who has given varying versions of the story even after it went public and has never made those accusations under oath" Was she ever asked to make the accusations under oath? Also, I thought we were never supposed to question when rape accusers change their story? Didn't she share it with her mother like decades ago? -Paul
[2020-10-21 13:33:24] - Pierce: I haven't read the NY Post story about Hunter Biden. Maybe because social media largely blocked it? But that kinda reinforces the Streisand Effect of it, right? Maybe if I had read it I would've dismissed it out of hand, but now that it has been censored and blocked, I subconsciously think there might be some truth I am being kept from? -Paul
[2020-10-21 12:58:10] - pierce; circling back to Reade, as far as I know she's never been afforded the opportunity to tell her story under oath. Maybe there could be one if Biden becomes president in the form of a congressional hearing, but there certainly won't be any criminal proceedings. That's a lame knock on her. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:23:31] - pierce: Posting a salacious screencap of Hunter would probably poison the well with any arguments about legitimacy of their article. So I can certainly believe they wouldn't want to splatter that on their front page. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:20:31] - It is however, still fair game to knock the NY Post for rushing this out unverified. If they end up being vindicated on this it'll be by accident, which doesn't reflect well on them. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:18:18] - pierce: And I don't believe Twitter would act the same way if the party affiliations are reversed. We're just not going to see eye to eye on that one. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:17:12] - The more details that are coming out, it's moving in the direction of more credibility (though not overly so). It's making Twitters current stance (the ny post's account is still locked because they're sticking by their article and not removing it from their feed) look more ridiculous. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:14:10] - The laptop is probably not part of a foreign disinformation effort. Sorry, Adam Schiff. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:07:51] - pierce: while you might have a point about team biden not able to dispute the authenticity of the emails (I still don't totally buy it). They can dispute the ownership of the laptop, can't they? Because I don't think they've commented on that either. If it's actually not Hunter's laptop that should be easy to prove. - mig
[2020-10-21 12:05:55] - pierce: the steele dossier is certainly comparable to this. - mig
[2020-10-21 05:14:11] - I think twitter and facebook are absolutely appropriate in mitigating the influence of this story. the timing, shadiness, and bias of the authors makes it absolutely irresponsible to boost its signal based only on what they've published so far. I'd want the same if the roles were reversed, and this was the nytimes reporting on a hard drive supposedly full of Jared Kushner's stuff. - pierce
[2020-10-21 05:02:26] - and seriously, do you think it's at all believable that the nypost would have access to a video of hunter biden smoking crack and engaged in a sex act, and they wouldn't grab a screencap to put above every hunter biden story? have you seen the nypost? - pierce
[2020-10-21 04:56:25] - I mean that. I challenge you to point to any story critical of trump from one of the major outlets, with a comparably fishy origin story for the material and so little effort or success corroborating the important details before publication. dan rather resigned after CBS's failure to properly authenticate the bush national guard memos, and those had a much more plausible origin than this. - pierce
[2020-10-21 04:39:23] - ...oops. vague sourcing of an unrelated aspect does not mean the core content is being represented accurately. if it is true then fox and the nypost are doing themselves a disservice by doing such a shitty job on the reporting. - pierce
[2020-10-21 04:33:28] - it should really not be difficult to find sources to confirm the ukraine parts of these allegations if they already have the real emails and the corruption is as significant as they're claiming. the vague sourcing o
[2020-10-21 04:27:11] - I recommend the book Sandworm for some discussion about the breadth of phishing attacks, if you think it's far-fetched to assume a state actor could get a copy of a legit email in which hunter biden was one of multiple recipients. - pierce
[2020-10-21 04:22:44] - given the questionable provenance of this whole thing, if it's an active disinformation campaign it's likely they could find a real email to throw in there that serves as an immediate counter to anyone broadly saying the archives are fraudulent. - pierce
[2020-10-21 04:15:12] - mig: that's exactly my point. your link has fox saying one unnamed source who was a recipient of one email (having no obvious connection to the ukraine accusations) confirming its authenticity, with unnamed sources (plural, not clear if they include the previous source) saying "the big guy" refers to joe biden. - pierce
[2020-10-21 03:41:17] - pierce: "This is really fucking fishy" is certainly a reasonable first impression of the NY post article and the details surrounding its origin. That some of the contents seem to be authentic is pretty significant though, which make it a little harder to just dismiss it as a fabricated hit job. - mig
[2020-10-20 22:31:34] - okay, the link below is broken but here's the tweet it was a screenshot of: "Just checking in to see how the story on Hunter dropping off an incriminating laptop in DE while living in CA to a Trump-fan shop owner whose security footage was wiped and who def saw Hunter but is legally blind, written by Hannity's producer w/ info from Giuliani is holding up." - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:26:29] - it's possible that both tara reade and chistine blasey ford are telling the truth, or had an experience with the person they're accusing that's "close enough" that we should condemn it. but when you step back and look at the "meta" aspects, the stories do not have the same credibility. the bias required to assert one is much higher than the bias required to assert the other. - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:26:13] - but I think that expectation feeds the tendencies of the media that Jon Stewart was criticizing: "The bias of the mainstream media is towards sensationalism, conflict and laziness." - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:26:07] - you seem to be operating under the assumption that good journalism means that each candidate gets equal coverage of topics that might hurt them, no matter the quantity or quality of those claims (you do seem to care about the quality of the accused behavior, though). - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:25:51] - the other would involve the accuser lying under oath in one of the most high-profile forums imaginable: a supreme court confirmation. she would've had to have been setting the stage for years, long before kavanaugh had a national platform... her couples' therapy logs from 2012 don't name him, but are specific enough to be useless as a "generic" hit piece for some future political purpose. - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:25:44] - paul: I think I agree that it's like Tara Reade vs. Christine Blasey Ford, but probably not in the way you mean. one side implies that biden committed sexual assault in a place where he could easily be observed by people who want his downfall, accused by someone who has given varying versions of the story even after it went public and has never made those accusations under oath. - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:04:48] - making that call to journalists in particular seems especially disingenuous from greenwald. journalists aren't supposed to trust things implicitly. he's implying that all the other journalists' silence means they're trusting the bidens implicitly when it's pretty likely they don't trust the bidens or the nypost's reporting implicitly. and holy shit does the nypost story invite skepticism. - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:04:38] - I think miguel's "partial confirmation" link below is an example of why I disagree with glenwald's characterization in his tweets. he's calling on the subjects of the story, or "any journalist with a straight face" to say that none of the emails are real. but that's a setup: if they make that assertion, and even one of the emails is real or has a source that says it is, then their credibility is shot. - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:04:19] - hunter never came back for the laptop? the varying descriptions from the shop owner about his interactions with the FBI? guiliani holding onto the information long after the information was being talked about in congressional hearings? other major news outlets not having access to the information to independently verify? not even a screenshot from the "12 minute video" of hunter smoking crack engaged in a sex act? - pierce
[2020-10-20 22:04:14] - paul: so going meta for a second, what's your assessment of the credibility of the nypost story about hunter biden? I hope you'll agree that there are a lot of questionable aspects of it from a journalistic perspective. this sums it up pretty well but there are even more problematic aspects the more you dig. - pierce
[2020-10-20 21:18:11] - Pierce: And less about investigative journalism looking into the facts surrounding whatever he may or may not have done. It feels like another situation like Tara Reade vs Christine Blasey Ford. -Paul
[2020-10-20 21:17:15] - Pierce: Maybe it is a difference in where we get our news (I don't want news, I mainly read things like CNN and CNBC and Google News and stuff found on Twitter and Facebook). I've definitely seen Hunter Biden in the news a lot lately, but most of it is about how Trump keeps attacking him or social media is blocking articles about him... -Paul
[2020-10-20 21:15:57] - Pierce: It's hard to say because, as alluded to, it doesn't feel like the Hunter Biden story has been investigated as much as the various Trump family wrongdoings. -Paul
[2020-10-20 21:14:04] - Pierce: It seems pretty likely the Trump kids have done more bad things. I am proposing that it is possible that Hunter Biden has done the (single?) thing which is the worst of the group. -Paul
[2020-10-20 21:12:58] - "how would you describe your receptiveness to this possibility" I think I am very receptive to the possibility. In fact, I think the most likely scenario is that, in aggregate, the Trump family has done a lot more problematic stuff than the Biden family. I guess the minor quibble I would make is quantity vs quality... -Paul
[2020-10-20 20:21:17] - ...compare that to greenwald, who is an individual member of the media with existing relationships with russian intelligence (guccifer 2.0). while many of the people he's criticizing could be held immediately and harshly accountable if they're caught lying, he wouldn't be. yet his calls to acknowledge journalistic bias seem only to be outward-facing. weird. - pierce
[2020-10-20 20:21:10] - meanwhile, greenwald is apparently claiming that mainstream media's relationship with the bidens and US intelligence is being used against trump... a wide-ranging effort that would involve a lot of people, many of whom could be directly punished by trump for doing so... - pierce
[2020-10-20 20:05:43] - paul: "pretty thorough investigation" is inherently undermined, to some degree, by his obstruction of justice. that's why obstruction of justice is what experts call "bad". and "largely found no evidence for that specific charge" ignores that "being a russian puppet" isn't a clear concept with a specific law against it, and to the degree that its facets are crimes, they were forbidden by policy from trying to charge him. - pierce
[2020-10-20 20:01:00] - my experience is that the news sources I've read and headlines I've seen recently, which are presumably probably more left-leaning than yours, are nevertheless talking about Hunter Biden more than all of Trump's kids combined. that wasn't true a year ago, but Joe Biden wasn't the democratic candidate then. - pierce
[2020-10-20 20:00:53] - paul: how would you describe your receptiveness to this possibility: that you hear more about conflicts of interests and shady dealings among trump and his children than among biden and his children, not primarily because of media bias or its coordination with US intelligence, but because Trump's circle is actually doing worse things? - pierce
[2020-10-20 19:58:25] - Pierce: But I guess I still feel like the burden of proof is on those who are making that claim. Yes, we don't have evidence he ISN'T a Machurian candidate or a Russian puppet, but we had a pretty thorough investigation which largely found no evidence for that specific charge (despite there being plenty else rotten). -Paul
[2020-10-20 19:57:09] - Pierce: Sure, obstruction of justice makes total sense. That statement previously was supposed to apply to Trump as well. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your point, though. Are you saying that because he obstructed justice we can't find out if he is a Russian puppet? If so, then that's also fair... -Paul
[2020-10-20 19:53:25] - the report said "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so", and its recommendations were guided by "longstanding department policy" in which "a present president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office". you have to recognize that the president interfered (whether technically legal or not) with the investigation's ability to answer the "puppet" question. - pierce
[2020-10-20 19:53:17] - paul: "it looks like the reality is that he's just a buffoon who surrounds himself with sketchy people" you're making a positive assertion that is contradicted by fact. looking just at the russia investigation: examples of the president's attempts to obstruct the investigation. not just sketchy people around him, actions of Trump himself. - pierce
[2020-10-20 17:16:06] - a: It wasn't an attempt to gloss over it, it was pointing out that nobody went to jail for collaborating with Russians to install a Manchurian candidate as President because Putin has video tapes of Trump involving golden showers or whatever other wild rumors were flying at the time. -Paul
[2020-10-20 16:28:16] - paul: don't gloss over that shit. "obstruction of justice" and "abuse of power" is what brought nixon down. its what would have brought trump down if there was any justice in this world. ~a
[2020-10-20 16:01:14] - a: Sure, for stuff like obstruction of justice or other things. But the main idea was that Trump was some Russian plant or Putin puppet when it looks like the reality is that he's just a buffoon who surrounds himself with sketchy people and who probably wanted to cheat at the election but largely failed? -Paul
[2020-10-20 15:58:01] - mig: understood, thanks. ~a
[2020-10-20 15:57:33] - "much of which ended up not really panning out" didn't dozens of people go to jail? ~a
[2020-10-20 15:55:55] - a: I'm not at all saying the Trumps are blameless. Far from it. But considering all the hysteria around Russian collusion and whatnot around Trump, much of which ended up not really panning out... is there more fire to the Hunter Biden smoke? -Paul
[2020-10-20 15:45:13] - a: partial verification. - mig
[2020-10-20 15:25:23] - paul: gotcha, ok. ~a
[2020-10-20 15:24:37] - mig: gotcha ok. well that does seem dumb. ny post article is completely unverified. so i guess it's not verifyably true or false yet. the fact that the bidens aren't saying its false is as questionable as trump not saying the ny times taxes story is false. i guess the big difference is the nypost != nytimes in terms of historical trust. ~a
[2020-10-20 15:21:36] - a: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/28/774178719/a-history-of-trumps-broken-ties-to-the-u-s-intelligence-community To be clear, I'm not saying it is undeserved at all, but there have been a ton of leaks and mini-scandals regarding text messages between FBI agents and whistleblowing NSA officials and other things. -Paul
[2020-10-20 15:20:17] - a: twitter and facebooks own statements? They have literally come out and said they have been either blocking users from posting the link to the NY post article (twitter) or otherwise reducing visibility of the article (facebook). - mig
[2020-10-20 15:14:17] - wait, no, not implication. directly stated. ~a
[2020-10-20 15:13:19] - mig: there was an implication that facebook and twitter have been actively trying to suppress the biden story. so, if so, evidence? ~a
[2020-10-20 15:12:29] - paul: i think that is not accurate, no. which is to say i've seen no evidence of this. ~a
[2020-10-20 15:12:24] - a: there was the implication that the NY post story was misinformation. So, if so, evidence? - mig
[2020-10-20 15:11:47] - a: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I don't know if Greenwald meant to imply that they were coordinating, but do you think it's not accurate to say that the intelligence community in general is anti-Trump? -Paul
[2020-10-20 15:09:29] - mig: i'm not sure i understand your question. that quote is me asking a question. in other words, i'm more or less asking paul what he's talking about. ~a
[2020-10-20 15:09:24] - a: I feel like I hear all the time about the corruption with the Trump family in the mainstream media. I only tend to hear about Hunter occasionally from niche libertarian news sources and when Trump won't shut up about him in debates.
-Paul[2020-10-20 15:08:23] - everybody is breaking traditions, some of those traditions hundreds of years long. we are indeed in unprecedented times. search the article for "many news companies" for the full list. it's crazy to me how nobody has been able to do anything about trump's lügenpresse policy. ~a
[2020-10-20 14:51:07] - a: "are they actively trying to suppress misinformation?" What evidence exists to support that claim? - mig
[2020-10-20 14:39:34] - "actively trying to suppress the story" . . . how have facebook and twitter been doing this? are they actively trying to suppress misinformation? that's the only thing i've seen them doing recently. ~a
[2020-10-20 14:38:21] - a: Hunter is out there more due to recency, and possibly the Streisand effect due to facebook and twitter actively trying to suppress the story. There's definitely been coverage of the Trump children. - mig
[2020-10-20 14:36:45] - "journalists have banded together ... with the fbi, cia, and the nsa" lol, ok paul. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . . . ~a
[2020-10-20 14:19:38] - i hear more from the news about hunter than eric or ivanka or tiffany or don jr or barron. even though its becoming more clear that all of them are profiting (illegally and unethically imo) from trump's presidency. ~a
[2020-10-20 13:46:43] - your question assumes the media doesn't have a blind spot for trump's children? ~a
[2020-10-20 13:43:36] - https://www.foxnews.com/media/glenn-greenwald-cone-of-silence-media-hunter-biden I know Fox News isn't the greatest objective news source, but I have a lot of respect for Glenn Greenwald. What do you guys think? Does the media have a blind spot for Hunter Biden that they don't have for Trump's sons? -Paul
[2020-10-19 23:41:45] - pierce: "they're making the 'core class' GPA requirement more strict". do you consider this a good change? "they're also abolishing a subjective criterion, teacher recommendations" again, i'm not sure this is a good change. "those who enjoyed the benefits of the test's bias can leverage their influence" huh? 13 year olds don't intentionally leverage much. ~a
[2020-10-19 22:48:01] - (3) speaking of metrics, what are we actually measuring here? what are we pointing to in order to determine whether TJ's practices are "good" or "bad"? is it the rate of college admissions? 20-year earning potential? AP exam scores? number of alumni mentioned in history books a few centuries from now? graduates' The Good Place-style point totals? - pierce
[2020-10-19 22:47:55] - (2) when there's a feedback loop between the inputs and outputs of a metric, an error that was "better than random" in a single sampling can amplify and become worse-than-random after multiple iterations. in this case, one could point to both the short-term bias towards "teaching the test", and the long-term effect in which those who enjoyed the benefits of the test's bias can leverage their influence and perpetuate that bias. - pierce
[2020-10-19 22:47:22] - a: "do you think it measures things *worse* than a random selection?" couple of things: (1) they're not replacing it with random selection. many of the other criteria will still be in place, and they're making the "core class" GPA requirement more strict. note that they're also abolishing a subjective criterion, teacher recommendations, so there's more to this than just getting rid of "objective" quantitative rankings. - pierce
[2020-10-19 21:17:43] - sure. ~a
[2020-10-19 21:17:25] - SC2 tonight? -Paul
[2020-10-19 20:19:19] - a: My bad. As I said, "my memory is shot". -Paul
[2020-10-19 19:12:22] - a: Agreed, but it is a fair way of reducing a qualified batch to a manageable size. I think everyone (here at least) is agreed that some preclearance is also required. I'm ambivalent over GPA/test. I think both have merits and drawbacks. So I'd ideally like as open an answer as possible while still having a high p. -- Xpovos
[2020-10-19 19:02:34] - xpovos: what you say is correct. a lottery system isn't inherently unfair. but, it also doesn't help the situation much. the lottery is a noisy indicator of future success. more noisy than a test. ~a
[2020-10-19 18:57:37] - Self-selection, plus arbitrary bar selection (GPA and/or test) then lottery from all qualified seems like a fair treatment. In other words, a lottery isn't bad, unless it's used to replace a different bar selection method, rather than in addition to. -- Xpovos
[2020-10-19 18:10:38] - a: probably technically a little better than random selection, but I have to imagine at this point the degrees of separation between qualified kids who get into TJ vs. those that don't are pretty small. - mig
[2020-10-19 16:56:51] - paul: "i'll say it. affirmative action is dumb. or . . . at least . . . affirmative action is messy." (me, 2020) "i strongly think the government shouldn't be ordering companies to hire certain races" (me, 2011) "does anyone who reads this message board agree with affirmative action" (me, 2003). "i don't think we have a side for afirmative action" (me, 2000) ~a
[2020-10-19 16:51:28] - paul: "mostly kidding" yahhhh . . . i'll assume that this is unsanctioned. this is bad press for tesla, honestly. still, fun though. ~a
[2020-10-19 16:46:45] - paul: link "I'm kinda with Adrian here, I'm not married to a test being required, but you need SOME way to figure out who should make it in and I don't see why a test is any worse than GPA. 'All of the kids applying to TJ have merit, have talent to be in TJ.' Really? Every kid that applies has the talent to be in TJ? I don't see how this doesn't dilute the school." ~a
[2020-10-19 16:45:57] - paul: "It's not about over or under estimating" ok, good point. "Based on previous conversations" we literally talked about this situation though. and you and i both said the lottery system was problematic. "affirmative action" wrong again? (if i recall correctly) i've never promoted affirmative action. ~a
[2020-10-19 16:40:49] - mig: "proivided they are using thresholds like GPA and such, probably" agreed, but lets presume that they use that in both systems. "I'm just not sold the test measures anything useful" do you think it measures things *worse* than a random selection? (or the same?) ~a
[2020-10-19 16:30:53] - a: https://twitter.com/RampCapitalLLC/status/1318187212714987521 Feeling good about our bet (mostly kidding!) -Paul
[2020-10-19 16:26:46] - a: It's not about over or under estimating, it's about what I think people prioritize. Based on previous conversations, I assumed you were big on the affirmative action to rectify societal racism thing, so this seemed very much in line with that. I totally don't recall the "I'm kinda with Adrian here" conversation, but my memory is shot. -Paul
[2020-10-19 16:20:33] - a: proivided they are using thresholds like GPA and such, probably. I'm just not sold the test measures anything useful. It's like the SAT were the best strategy is to teach the test, then actually learn to math or science better. - mig
[2020-10-19 16:12:47] - mig: (ok, lets assume they don't do that. still . . .) why do you like a lottery? do you think you get better, by your definition of better, candidates from a lottery than a test? ~a
[2020-10-19 16:06:58] - I'm mostly fine with a lottery provided they aren't weighting it so that they can get the "correct" results. - mig
[2020-10-19 15:51:01] - paul: (while you're answering, i'll leave you with this miguel quote: "A lottery seems ... mostly fine I guess". and a paul quote that it seems you forgot about: "I'm kinda with Adrian here". so you basically had it exactly backwards?) ~a
[2020-10-19 15:48:02] - paul: what? no. you do have the tendency to underestimate me. why would i be for a lottery? play adrian here and tell me why he thinks the lottery is a good idea. ~a
[2020-10-19 15:47:26] - a: Wait, so you are against the lottery? I just assumed everybody here outside of possibly Miguel would be for these changes. -Paul
[2020-10-19 15:42:28] - yeah seems like an unequivocally bad idea. i'm not sure you'll get much argument from those here? maybe pierce? i haven't been watching the facebook groups anymore, but i'll imagine at least a minority of people there probably like the change (there are a lot of crazies there). ~a
[2020-10-19 15:26:10] - https://www.localdvm.com/news/memorial-held-at-thomas-jefferson-high-school-after-fcps-adopts-new-admissions-policies/ -Paul
[2020-10-18 20:20:16] - Pierce: Yup, it's entirely possible it is legitimate. Wouldn't surprise me that the challenger (even one who has been in politics as long as Biden has) would be more "unknown" and that people would want to learn more about. -Paul
[2020-10-16 23:56:45] - a: /shrug? smarter people than Trump have fallen for the onion or the babylonbee. - mig
[2020-10-16 22:37:55] - plus that article provides no data or an argument about how many people might've actually listened to the tiktokers and multi-streamed biden's town hall, which gives the whole thing a cheap "kids these days" moral panic vibe, like local news segments about some new scary drug or the tide pod challenge. - pierce
[2020-10-16 22:27:59] - ...and I vaguely recall that nielsen ratings already skew older and more conservative, so if trump lost there then biden probably didn't need tiktokers to win the online share. - pierce
[2020-10-16 22:23:31] - paul: biden beat trump on nielsen ratings, though, and the tiktok advice to watch on multiple devices simultaneously wouldn't have meaningfully affected that. at most it might've undermined a "but our streaming numbers were higher" response from the trump campaign... - pierce
[2020-10-16 20:50:46] - "This story has yet to be verified by The Onion" ~a
[2020-10-16 20:49:57] - here's the tweet (as of writing, it hasn't been deleted yet). sigh ~a
[2020-10-16 20:43:15] - it was only a matter of time. ~a
[2020-10-16 18:06:51] - paul: gotcha. ~a
[2020-10-16 18:06:29] - another reason the ratings surprise me are the specifics. trump had a lot more interesting questions asked. trump had to talk about denouncing white supremacists, and whether he had covid pneumonia, or used oxygen, and which days he had negative tests, and what his thoughts were on whether democrats eat babies (qanon), and if he'd accept the election results, and his huge debts. biden (only) had to answer questions about court packing? ~a
[2020-10-16 18:04:56] - a: https://www.cnet.com/news/tiktokers-are-trying-to-tank-donald-trumps-town-hall-ratings/ Maybe this is why? -Paul
[2020-10-16 17:55:59] - "Biden Beats Trump in Head-to-Head Town Hall Ratings" honestly, this kinda surprises me. i mean, i guess people already know everything they need to know about trump, and biden is less known compared to trump. but, trump (as shitty of a statesman he is) is a spectacle. his unhinged and unexpected ramblings are sometimes entertaining. ~a
[2020-10-16 16:34:07] - a: Cool, thanks. Ballot Received: "10/13/2020" -Paul
[2020-10-16 16:06:05] - paul: oh ok, nevermind. what i did was *virginia* specific, not arlington specific: https://vote.elections.virginia.gov/VoterInformation/Lookup/status did you try this? look for "Ballot Received". if the column is blank, you might need to wait a little longer. but definitely make sure its filled in before your last chance to vote. ~a
[2020-10-16 15:58:44] - paul: some states (dc for instance) let you see if your ballot was "accepted". i didn't see anything like that in arlington. ~a
[2020-10-16 15:58:12] - paul: for me there is a "received" column with a date (in october 2020). fairfax county might be different from arlington county, sorry. ~a
[2020-10-16 15:57:38] - paul: the *other* thing, where you look up if your ballot was received, is different from tracking. i'm not sure the rules in fairfax county, but i'm definitely able to see that my ballot was received (its not "tracking"). ~a
[2020-10-16 15:57:36] - a: I can check my voter history and see "2020 November GeneralFull BallotFAIRFAX COUNTY" show up, but I don't know if that means they sent it to me or received it. -Paul
[2020-10-16 15:56:50] - a: Yeah, I didn't want to "invest" in GME. I basically wanted a lottery ticket. Spend a few bucks on the remote chance of making hundreds/thousands. -Paul
[2020-10-16 15:56:42] - paul: there are two concepts (in virginia): tracking and . . . something. tracking only makes sense if you use usps. ~a
[2020-10-16 15:56:05] - a: Were you the one who mentioned tracking absentee ballots? Do you know if it works if you drop it off at the government center / courthouse / whatever drop-off location? The page I am looking at seems to rely on USPS tracking and still says I haven't sent mine back yet. -Paul
[2020-10-16 15:55:22] - though you do have permissions to go long. you also have permissions to do a limit or stop.
in my mind options are only really helpful if you want to do some more complex hedging (or leveraging, yikes). ~a[2020-10-16 15:53:46] - a: Because I didn't have the proper options permissions, I was literally like 2 days late for that jump around August 28 and I never got around to doing it. Would've been a HUGE winner. -Paul
[2020-10-16 15:52:49] - a: "i wouldn't buy gme today unless i wanted to gamble with a few dollars." True story, I emailed Dave about buying some... calls (?) on GME about a month or two ago because I wanted to think about gambling a tiny bit of money on a tremendous short squeeze based on the short interest and the console refresh cycle. -Paul
[2020-10-16 15:05:57] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24dSOE9XtI pretty interesting video on all the cut content from the original diablo. - mig
[2020-10-16 14:50:13] - yeah, uhhhhh. if 100% of the shares have been sold short, then that means you have twice as many people going long than there are actual shares. which is probably a good sign that people do think the price is too low, or that the company has a good outlook (short term or long term). still, i wouldn't buy gme today unless i wanted to gamble with a few dollars. ~a
[2020-10-16 14:47:58] - paul: "extremes in short interest are considered by some traders to be a contrarian indicator. for example, an extremely high short interest for a stock may indicate that investors have become too bearish, and the price may actually be due for a reversal to the upside"
~a[2020-10-16 14:45:34] - paul: short % of float, today is 300%. wtf, hah. i have no idea what to say about gamestop. ~a
[2020-10-16 14:43:19] - paul: they're only saying that a price may (or may not) hit a different price in the future, not that they only care about 12-18 of the future. ~a
[2020-10-16 14:42:53] - paul: your logical jump from analysts making a "price target" about 12-18 months out meaning that they're only looking at the 12-18 in future is a faulty one. if the analyst is right, and the price hits the price target 12-18 months in the future, that price *itself* will include assumptions/guesses/predictions of the future. ~a
[2020-10-16 14:39:45] - a: So maybe Gamestop is a good example. A few months ago it was at like $2 a share and short interest was (somehow) over 100% of float. Now it is at $13 a share. Gamestop can easily be a short-ish term winner, but are they likely to be a huge long term winner? I would say it is less likely. -Paul
[2020-10-16 14:34:49] - a: "what if the current price already accounts for their "brighter future?"" I think they do to a certain extent. All you have to do is look at analyst price targets. As I understand it, they're trying to look 12-18 months out. Great! But how useful is that for something like Netflix 10 years ago? You could predict they increase their domestic saturation but can't account for global expansion at all. -Paul
[2020-10-16 13:49:40] - "buffett also has a reputation as one of the greatest active stock pickers of all-time, making him a rather odd ambassador for the passive investing movement", "less than 1% of berkshire’s liquid equity portfolio is invested in index funds". it's not that he is passive. it's that he knows the true effort "active" takes. other stuff ~a
[2020-10-16 13:42:36] - i have evidence to the contrary. ~a
[2020-10-16 13:42:28] - "correctly priced today (however we judge that), but some companies have a brighter future and that is probably worth paying up for even if that means they look more expensive today" what if the current price already accounts for their "brighter future?" what if the price has the "years in the future" price included? i know you think other traders do not care about the distant future, but why do you think this? ~a
[2020-10-16 13:01:29] - a: Anyway, I thought it was funny that you threw Warren Buffett's bet at me last night considering that, ya know, Warren Buffett himself is a stock picker.
-Paul[2020-10-16 13:00:52] - a: So, sure, maybe everything is correctly priced today (however we judge that), but some companies have a brighter future and that is probably worth paying up for even if that means they look more expensive today. -Paul
[2020-10-16 12:59:59] - a: Sure. Cathie Wood had a good quote recently (that I have heard from others before) about how if you have a 5 year time horizon, then you can view something like ARKK as a deep value fund. It goes back to the question of what time horizon do people have. If you are looking years in the future, you can take advantage of people who are looking more short term. -paul
[2020-10-16 12:57:15] - paul: i did say "that is correct", but let me try to walk that back some. what i meant to say, what i usually say, is that (if they're correctly priced today) vtsax and vgt have the same volatility-weighted return. that doesn't mean they have a 50/50 chance of beating each-other. but, to be honest, i'm on the fence about all of this, which is why i hold tiny amounts of vgt. ~a
[2020-10-16 00:55:00] - paul: done. ~a
[2020-10-16 00:52:04] - Daniel: I assumed 50/50 based on Adrian's response when I asked "So you think every index/sector/company, has exactly the same chance to outperform every other index/sector/company over the next few years?" -Paul
[2020-10-16 00:51:13] - a: Deal. You putting it in the spreadsheet? -Paul
[2020-10-15 22:39:28] - paul: sure why not. $20 in btc? arkk closed today at 102.83 and vtsax is 86.53. we account for dividends, and if either fund shuts down before 2025-10-15 16:00 we end the bet early at that time. ~a
[2020-10-15 20:06:01] - Who said 50/50? I don't know how I would quantify what a company's chances of beating the market were. Again if I thought I could I would probably have a different strategy. I don't know if over the next ten years Ford does better than Amazon. Maybe Amazon goes the way on Enron because of some crazy scandal. Who knows. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 19:48:39] - a: And I get dismissing some of that to luck, but if it was really as 50/50 as you seem to think it is that a company beats the market or loses to it... wouldn't we see some sign of that by now? -Paul
[2020-10-15 19:47:43] - a: And, like you said, the wins have often not been a few percentage points, but massive beats of like 40%+ -Paul
[2020-10-15 19:47:12] - a: Even I've been a little surprised at the success of the stock pickers vs the index funds in the stock market challenge / fantasy investing. Over the course of like 3 - 4 "years" and an average of around like 4 participants a year, I think stock pickers have only lost to the index funds twice, and one of those was Aaron's "apoopyfart" portfolio. -Paul
[2020-10-15 19:33:19] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/europe/coronavirus-asia-pacific-west-intl/index.html So is the story now that Trump is handling COVID better than European leaders?
-Paulprev <-> next