prev <-> next
[2021-01-10 02:44:41] - those companies are not conscious conspirators. they're also not completely preventing the crime. they're also arguably limiting a right to "free movement" to innocent people nearby. - pierce
[2021-01-10 02:43:45] - how about this... imagine there was a broadly coordinated plan to rob a bunch of banks. because their own cars' license plates would be easily identified, the robbers plan to use Uber, Lyft, Hertz, Avis, and taxis instead of doing their own getaway driving. Would you criticize those companies for saying they won't do any pickups within a four-block radius of a bank until the credible threat has passed? - pierce
[2021-01-09 23:27:31] - daniel: for the record I don’t necessarily share paul’s viewpoint, I just found the ACLU statement interesting. - mig
[2021-01-09 20:10:10] - There was a point made comparing twitter/trump to the bakery and the gay couple with the cakes awhile back that I thought was interesting since I think in general our positions might have all(?) been flipped on that some. So another thing just to think about I guess as we go through all this. -Daniel
[2021-01-09 20:09:03] - There isn't really a point to that sentence specifically just a thought. -Daniel
[2021-01-09 20:08:50] - mig: (and paul) I get the theory of the arguement but its an interesting place to put Twitter (and other social medias) where them banning people is 'a big deal' where we get worried about Free speech implications. Like anytime a platform gets successful then it somewhat becomes a victim of its own success where now it now how to worry about its responsibility in 'deplatforming' someone. -Daniel
[2021-01-09 17:54:16] - https://twitter.com/ericliptonnyt/status/1347734217371873280?s=21 ACLU kind of echoing paul’s stance - mig
[2021-01-09 14:32:34] - so is the next attack planned for inauguration day? or is there some other major milestone which happens before then? i sort of expected this stuff to all be focused around the 20th or a few days before, i was surprised it happened so early - aaron
[2021-01-09 02:34:01] - Paul: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html In depth discussion from twitter on why Trump got perma banned now. So you can at least get a better read on their justification (even if you don't agree / like it). -Daniel
[2021-01-08 18:31:09] - replace "sedition" with "illegal or unconstitutional sedition" ~a
[2021-01-08 18:31:09] - a: Yeah, I was surprised that there was no real mention of violence or force with sedition. It honestly sounds like lots of things can fall under that umbrella. -Paul
[2021-01-08 18:30:33] - meh, i probably wanted the verb. never mind. i concede. sedition was the wrong word here. ~a
[2021-01-08 18:29:55] - paul: rebel a person who resists an established authority, often violently. not all violence is illegal, but like, most of it is. without knowing *anything* about resist, i can't know if they promoted illegal violence. ~a
[2021-01-08 18:28:38] - a: To be clear, as stated, I consider sedition to not necessarily be a bad thing.
-Paul[2021-01-08 18:27:43] - a: "Sedition: conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." What was #resist supposed to stand for if not rebelling against the authority of Trump? -Paul
[2021-01-08 18:21:27] - resistance is rarely sedition. what did the resist movement do? ~a
[2021-01-08 18:19:02] - paul: a majority of your neighbors voted for him (or her, you're also on a district boundary and i'm not sure if you're 10th or 11th). its your representative whether you voted for them or not. not mine though, i'm in a different district. ~a
[2021-01-08 18:17:59] - a: Sedition is a surprisingly (to me, at least) broad word. Would you say the same word applies to the #Resist movement during Trump? -Paul
[2021-01-08 18:14:53] - a: I feel no particular affinity for my representative, so I don't necessarily care if I'm "safe" or in the red. I can assure you I didn't vote for them.
-Paul[2021-01-08 18:01:01] - if you live in one of these districts, your representative objected to a legal, democratic election. the objections were border-line sedition and i feel like i'd probably still feel this way if the roles were reversed. looks like paul and mig and xpovos and pierce are "safe" (xpovos is near the edge). daniel you're right on a congressional district boundary. ~a
[2021-01-08 18:00:36] - paul: "If it was illegally inciteful, then I am less disappointed in twitter" i'm sure a judge could easily argue either way, but twitter has to decide for itself what is imminent incitement to keep the law of their back. ~a
[2021-01-08 17:49:24] - a: Was it determined that it was illegal incitement to violence? I have no idea what he tweeted. If it was illegally inciteful, then I am less disappointed in twitter. To be clear, I don't have a problem with you smiling and I totally get finding joy in Trump being frustrated. I find joy in that as well. I just also worry about censoring and big tech. -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:42:45] - you did not smile, and i'm not sure why. he's such a petulant child and this feeds right into that. it should make us all smile on this sad week. ~a
[2021-01-08 17:41:32] - they took it down, they then banned trump. and trump was furious. and i smiled. on the inside. ~a
[2021-01-08 17:41:01] - paul: that was my point! ~a
[2021-01-08 17:40:49] - yeah i was actually quoting that url. ~a
[2021-01-08 17:40:47] - a: Okay, so it sounds like Twitter wouldn't have a choice, right? It legally has to take it down? -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:40:21] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:40:06] - paul: yes. i quoted it just now. "intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely" this counts imo. ~a
[2021-01-08 17:39:35] - a: Those sound like legal issues, no? Aren't there very specific rules on what counts as incitement of violence? -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:36:13] - should nazis be able to say "let's have trial by combat" and not be joking, but instead be referring to a specific date and time and location? on twitter? ~a
[2021-01-08 17:34:48] - paul: https://richmond.com/news/local/former-national-teacher-of-the-year-rodney-robinson-apologizes-for-tweet-about-rand-paul-mitch/article_70da4dad-b999-5991-a1e6-a pretty recently someone spoke on twitter approvingly of attack on rand paul. - mig
[2021-01-08 17:34:34] - great example, thanks paul: should nazis planning a lynching be able to plan their lynching on twitter? ~a
[2021-01-08 17:33:49] - a: So in this case, yeah, I think Twitter should be able to ban Trump. And I am guessing I absolutely don't approve of what he said, but I still don't think banning the current President from Twitter is a positive development. Don't approve of Nazis, but still think they should've been able to march. -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:32:33] - a: So, I get why this is a little confusing, because there's three different ways to look at speech on Twitter (for example): (1) Should twitter be allowed to ban people? Yes. (2) Should they ban people for legal speech? I wish they wouldn't. (3) Does that mean the speech is good or I approve? Obviously not necessarily. -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:30:46] - a: I'm not saying either or both are good. Heck, I'm not even saying Trump's wasn't worse. I am just pointing out how much of a slippery slope it can get to. I can't count the number of times I've seen people express the desire to have been Rand Paul's neighbor (ie, the guy who tackled him and punctured his lung). That seems like a credible threat to a current Senator. Does that warrant a ban? -Paul
[2021-01-08 17:14:58] - a police officer died. that really sucks. 5 deaths now. 4 people entering the capitol grounds and 1 capitol police officer. ~a
[2021-01-08 17:00:34] - paul: giuliani literally said "let's have trial by combat". he wasn't joking. at least one woman took him very literally, and i don't think it was a misinterpretation of his words. that probably made it onto trump's twitter. ~a
[2021-01-08 16:56:39] - hmmm, ok. maybe nevermind? all his speeches made it onto twitter. ~a
[2021-01-08 16:54:50] - paul: "pretty much every day on Twitter I see threats of violence from blue checkmarks towards politicians so" it's your favorite: two wrongs don't make a right. paul/daniel/pierce: did trump break the law on twitter? what's the test for the first amendment? "intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely". he broke this one in his speech imo, but maybe not on twitter. ~a
[2021-01-08 16:48:18] - Daniel: I guess I would have to see the tweet in question (and if it is illegal, then that obviously introduces another factor). It's not hyperbole to say that pretty much every day on Twitter I see threats of violence from blue checkmarks towards politicians so.... if we're banning Trump for that it's hard not to argue for banning a ton of celebrities and journalists and professors and other people on Twitter. -Paul
[2021-01-08 16:22:56] - And inciting violence as adrian pointed out? Is that acceptable to take down? Then its a question of whether or not you think Trump was but in the lens that Twitter thought he was does it make more sense why it was removed? -Daniel
[2021-01-08 16:12:00] - Daniel: I don't want to see what Trump tweets, so I don't follow him. I think I may have also muted him so I don't see retweets or anything. As a result, I basically never see his tweets. That works for me. -Paul
[2021-01-08 16:11:04] - Daniel: It depends on the platform for me. On twitter, you choose who you want to follow. They provide tools to deal with direct messages and replies, so you can control what you see. Whenever possible, I prefer giving people tools to control what they want to see versus outright banning. -Paul
[2021-01-08 16:09:31] - Daniel: "I'm curious about where you draw the line" It's a hazy area, right? I got dozens of text messages about voting a few months ago that I considered spam, but which I am sure somebody would argue is political speech. PvtM is blocked on Facebook because it considers it spam, but I obviously disagree. -Paul
[2021-01-08 16:07:13] - Daniel: Again, if Twitter banned all Republican politicians or anybody who says "BLM" or... whatever, those people can still express themselves in other mediums, but I think it's hard to argue that Twitter permits free speech on its platform. -Paul
[2021-01-08 16:05:08] - Daniel: It's less about infringing on my free speech and more about a culture of free speech. Sure, no private company can completely take away my freedom of speech like the government can. Doesn't mean that they can't create a culture that is hostile to free speech, though. -Paul
[2021-01-08 16:03:38] - Paul: I guess then I'm curious about where you draw the line. Do you desire a completely unfettered platform then? I mean what about spam? Adrian does moderate / delete that? Is the board a worse place for that? Assuming you are on board with that you do support some censorship at least. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 16:02:26] - Paul: I don't think Adrian would be infringing your free speech. I think thats the crux of the part I disagree with. I think you can think worse of Twitter but I don't think anyone's free speech is affected by twitter. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:57:03] - What happened on wednesday was pretty fucking bad. I'm not sure why it matters whether it was technically worse than 9/11. This seems like a lame political point scoring exercise. - mig
[2021-01-08 15:54:53] - Again, this has nothing to do with what Twitter or Adrian HAS to do or has any obligation to do. Adrian and Twitter can do whatever they want. But I think their platforms would be best served for minimizing banning and censorship, not encouraging it. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:54:38] - pierce: Thinking SCOTUS would actually entertain anything that might reverse the election results is pretty wild, man. They've already punted on that once with Trump's ridiculous legal challenges. Maybe there's some bizzaro legal scenario where that's possible but you'd have to lay that out for me to take that statement seriously. - mig
[2021-01-08 15:53:18] - I can't believe nobody has thought to use this message board as an analogy. What if Adrian finally had enough of me and decided to ban me? Is that laudable because there's nothing in the TOS about allowing free speech or because I can always spout my nonsense on Twitter? -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:52:07] - Daniel: Like, do you think Twitter would be a better platform if it banned all conservatives? Would it benefit society? I think it just pushes those people to alternatives like Parler and we have more echo chambers and less tolerance by everybody for dissenting opinions. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:51:05] - Daniel: It has nothing to do with the idea that I think Donald Trump is getting harmed because he can't get his message out. It's more about how I think, in general, our society and the private companies that operate in it, should be more accepting of speech and not trying to restrict it more. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:50:07] - Daniel: I think censorship in general is bad. Doesn't matter if it's government or private. What if Twitter started banning accounts that said, "Black Lives Matter"? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "that's fine, because Twitter never guarantees free speech and it's not that important"? -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:30:27] - Paul: It seems like because you think Twitter is big enough that being blocked there is inflicting enough harm on the thing banned / censored as to present 'a real problem' where that is something I'm not sure the definition is. I think in general I disagree because I don't think Twitter is that important? But maybe that is me. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:29:14] - Paul: But no company offers or guarantees free speech? Only the gov? I'm confused I guess. Twitter offers the ability to everyone to share info but I'm assuming in their TOS it doesn't guarantee free speech no matter what. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:29:11] - Daniel: Free speech isn't just something that has to do with government arresting you. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:28:36] - Daniel: "thats different than arguing the principle of free speech" Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction" -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:27:33] - Daniel: "It means not arresting those people for those positions" Yes, when we are talking about government, when we are talking about private companies it has to do with the actions they can take (they can't arrest people). -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:26:42] - You can argue that they are contradicting their mission statement but thats different than arguing the principle of free speech. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:26:37] - Daniel: And it is less about any specific thing Trump tweeted (or even Trump himself) and more about the precedent it sets and the other actions taken. Twitter (and other social media) has been taking down lots of other content surrounding COVID and the election and lots of other topics. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:25:32] - It means not arresting those people for those positions. It doesn't obligate Twitter / NYT / Facebook / private owned land to give them a soapbox. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:25:06] - Daniel: " Is Twitter obligated to act as a public good that is 100% unrestricted?" No, it is not obligated. It is private and can do whatever the hell it wants. But I do think that when your mission statement is: "To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers" (Twitter) then I would like it to be as least censorious as possible. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:22:44] - Pierce: So yes, sometimes believing in freedom of speech means accepting Nazis marching on Skokie or Alex Jones spouting wild conspiracy theories, but it also means allowing speech supporting interracial marriage and homosexuality and whatever other "good" things that were once taboo. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:21:48] - I think I (we) can be fine with freedom of speech and not see banning on twitter as infringing on it. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:20:56] - I think moderation will always be needed on the internet and I think its fair to argue that people / companies should be careful with it but don't think that Twitter overstepped. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:20:42] - Paul: I get (I think) the free speech argument but I think part of the counter point is that while they can deny their own platforms that doesn't actually silence the voice. They are free (and in the case of Trump did) to seek alternatives. Is Twitter obligated to act as a public good that is 100% unrestricted? Is Parler? -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:19:43] - Pierce: If you believe only in freedom of speech that you find acceptable and comfortable, then you believe in speech that you agree with, not freedom of speech. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:19:08] - Pierce: "you're implying an active responsibility for twitter to continue to amplify him despite his other options, even if it incites violence and is counter to their personal ethics or financial interest." I'm saying that if you believe in freedom of speech, then you believe in it even for people you disagree with it or you don't believe in it at all. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:17:13] - Pierce: Maybe banning Trump is the right move. But even if it is, I personally view the move as a discouraging development (that we need to have social media billionaires deciding what viewpoints / speech / politicians are allowed) and not one that makes me smile. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:13:44] - pierce: certain viewpoints over the past few years. It's a slippery slope, and immediately starts raising questions (Why is Trump banned but @khamenei_ir is still allowed? How about things like China state-affiliated media considering what they are doing to Uighurs? Should Ted Cruz also be banned?) -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:10:45] - pierce: "any responsible platform should have limited his ability to do that" Maybe? I am not interested in discussing the specifics of limiting Trump's ability to tweet a few days ago because I don't follow him and have no idea what he tweeted and I don't have much of a desire to appear to be defending Trump at all. But in a general sense I am pretty uncomfortable with how willing these platforms have been to censor... -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:07:13] - a: I can't go up to Netflix and demand they host my podcast and get mad that they won't because there's no expectation that they just let any rando publish their stuff on their platform. On the other hand.... that's kinda YouTube's (and Twitter's and Facebook's) whole platform. -Paul
[2021-01-08 15:05:58] - a: I know a lot of the pictures didn't show ton's of guns but https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supporter-arrested-at-capitol-had-11-molotov-cocktails-feds-2021-1 does show that at least some of them were armed. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 15:05:12] - a: Re: Netflix "these are rules you might not like, but you agree to them" Yes, again, totally agree that private companies can make rules and restrict however they want, but I can be upset that they do it (or how they do it). I still don't understand your Netflix analogy, though. Netflix spends money to produce content. They aren't a platform for others to upload and share their own content. -Paul
[2021-01-08 14:48:59] - Vs Tuesday being seen as done by one of the internal parties at the behest of the outgoing Pres I think could damage the legitimacy of the gov in a way that 9/11 couldn't. Also I think the line between Congress people getting taken by rioters is thinner than you seem to represent Adrian. 50 guys with pistols isn't enough bullets for the number of people that where there if the rioters just decided to throw their bodies into it. -Daniel
[2021-01-08 14:46:11] - -Daniel
[2021-01-08 14:46:09] - I think there is a case to be made where I agree with Pierce. I think the loss of life was much worse on 9/11 and it could have been a heavy blow against our gov if they had hit Congress / WH with the last plan but I don't think it ultimately threatened the continuity of the gov. There are procedures for replacing people as needed as terrible as it would be. Also because it was done by an external actor it might have a unifying effect.
[2021-01-08 06:28:16] - gn. ~a
[2021-01-08 06:28:12] - yep let's impeach the guy. ~a
[2021-01-08 06:27:37] - g'night. - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:27:17] - the secret service, like the DC National Guard, also reports to the executive branch. the US Capitol Police, the DC Metro Police, and the VA and MD reenforcements were the only ones not under Trump. the first one failed spectacularly, the other three were very late and have limited authority. - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:25:07] - (it's 1:30 here and i stayed up all night last night watching the pennsylvania and arizona electoral college certification objections. i'll respond to other stuff in the morning, gnight guys!) ~a
[2021-01-08 06:24:44] - secret service, capitol police, senate sergeant at arms, house sergeant at arms, i'm not saying it's a for sure thing either way, i'm just sure either way. ~a
[2021-01-08 06:23:08] - was harris there, or has her seat already been filled? if she was there then she probably also had some secret service coverage. regardless, the onsite role of the secret service isn't staffed to protect hundreds of people from a mob assault. - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:20:23] - a: correct me if I'm wrong, but the only direct role of the secret service yesterday would've been to protect pence. they're not chartered to protect the legislature or american democracy in general. - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:17:06] - paul: you believe in freedom of speech... but if anyone does, the president definitely has freedom of speech. he also has free-market alternative platforms to express that speech if he doesn't prefer the government-provided ones. you're implying an active responsibility for twitter to continue to amplify him despite his other options, even if it incites violence and is counter to their personal ethics or financial interest. - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:13:52] - pierce: "justify this as an existential threat to the independent legislature" i think it was an existential threat to the independentent legislature. i'm just not sure it's worse (or much worse) than 9/11. "are you waiting for that incident to take a firmer stand on this issue?" what specifically was not firm enough about my stance? ~a
[2021-01-08 06:13:51] - pierce: "we've established how little they need to do to controlling the senate and the presidential line of succession" we have? they had weapons. killing a single democratic senator would have changed the power of the senate, but i have a hard time imagining a world where guys with weapons and zipties would have been able to get past secret service with guns to kill a senator. ~a
[2021-01-08 06:10:34] - and do you need something exactly that much closer to justify this as an existential threat to the independent legislature? and you think another incident might stop at that threshold without going further and largely culling the democrats (and "RINO traitors" like pence)? are you waiting for that incident to take a firmer stand on this issue? - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:07:06] - a: so how much closer do you think it could've gotten that still isn't the end of legislative control for the democrats? we've established how little they need to do to controlling the senate and the presidential line of succession (and it would've been easy enough to kill enough democratic house members to put the entire congress in jeopardy, too). - pierce
[2021-01-08 06:01:03] - yes. ~a
[2021-01-08 06:00:50] - yes. ~a
[2021-01-08 06:00:19] - do you agree that his video reponse further rationalized the violence? a milquetoast "go home" drowned by supportive words and a reiteration of their core grievance? - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:56:02] - pierce: "inflaming a mob and pointing them in the right direction has intent" don't try to argue that trump pushed these people to an insurrection? i already agree trump pushed people to insurrection. maybe this insurrection is worse than 9/11 because of how close it got to actually doing real damage to our government's stability. but i'm not convinced of how close it got. close enough that i'd be totally fine with an impeachment? ~a
[2021-01-08 05:55:03] - ...without fear of deplatforming? the message he sent might've been much more about loving their special selves, and much less about "respect law enforcement and go home" - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:53:28] - and truthfully, if trump had been able to sing his heartsong on twitter without fear of deplatforming
[2021-01-08 05:50:57] - killing those three people (pence, pelosi, and grassley) would've been enough for a retaliation-resistant constitutional crisis, though. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:49:11] - I'll be clear that I don't have the burden of proving that each and every member of the mob had those goals explicitly in mind. inflaming a mob and pointing them in the right direction has intent, even if you don't know everyone's motivations or how exactly it'll play out. killing all the democrats, or random members of congress, or the entire legislature... all of these could've been used to serve trump's goals. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:43:48] - they were driven there by the president telling them that democrats had stolen the election and that they had to march on the capitol. violent rhetoric was a theme in the rally as a whole. they've been hyping up particular names (AOC, the squad, pelosi, schumer) to the point where they'd be recognized by the mob. it'd be easy enough to hold kangaroo court. does that fulfill the burden? - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:40:49] - a: yesterday, a violent mob broke into the capitol to interfere with the legislature executing its constitutional duty to certify the election. the mob had weapons and zipties and confederate flags, and faced an undermanned and/or undertrained defense force protecting the members of congress. they invaded and looted congressional offices, lucky the legislators weren't there. they built a gallows outside the capitol. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:33:54] - and he has official platforms that make it not a real restriction. he doesn't need twitter to be heard. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:33:05] - but of all scenarios, the president has least claim to having been censored by a temporary ban from the platform after enflaming violent insurrection. those complicated issues are not complicated here: any responsible platform should have limited his ability to do that. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:31:32] - paul: I agree that freedom of speech is important. it's important enough that the government should not enjoin us from it. I have complicated views on the privatization of the public sphere, whether that's kicking occupy protesters out of what were once public gathering spaces, or the use of a private platform as the primary mouthpiece of the president. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:30:53] - pierce: "is not a solid defense" i don't think i need a defense. i think maybe you have the burden of proof backwards. "yesterday could've eliminated the democrats' official power in congress" i'm not sure this is true. ~a
[2021-01-08 05:28:17] - we have a lot to analyze about the failures in law enforcement yesterday, but "protected by the secret service" is not a solid defense against the idea that yesterday could've eliminated the democrats' official power in congress. I'd like to think that dead senators and representatives would galvanize a public response to prevent it from being a complete takeover by the republicans, but that's entirely speculative. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:27:07] - pierce: my bad. ~a
[2021-01-08 05:26:38] - paul: "Netflix makes their own content" subcontracts and stuff. agreements to produce content? "i can't just upload whatever content i want to netflix." there are rules for what gets uploaded to netflix. you have to agree to terms before netflix will pay for and make available your content. these are rules you might not like, but you agree to them. in this case, though, it's not rules, it's laws. laws were broken. ~a
[2021-01-08 05:25:30] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/jonathan-brostoff/capitol-police-not-secret-service-shot-and-killed-/ - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:24:31] - Pierce: "why you have these opinions". Because I think freedom of speech is important. "and consider them the relevant issues in light of what has just trasnspired" Because, as has been pointed out a few times, I believe, Adrian asked. -Paul
[2021-01-08 05:23:35] - Pierce: "is the freedom of the market only good when it empowers him, and you judge it when it chooses otherwise?" No. I think freedom of speech is an important right for everybody, not just the President of the United States. Especially for people not the President of the United States. "It's all well and good when used against people you don't like... until it starts getting used against you." -Paul
[2021-01-08 05:23:20] - pierce: one of them was being shot by the secret service. ~a
[2021-01-08 05:23:03] - pierce: because the four people who died weren't being guarded by the secret service. ~a
[2021-01-08 05:22:04] - a: given what we established about both the balance of the senate and the presidential line of succession, which would've required fewer deaths than yesterday's body count to cover both, I'm curious what your argument is for that. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:17:27] - pierce: "yesterday going differently could've eliminated the opposition party in the legislature" nah. it could not have. ~a
[2021-01-08 05:04:50] - you're free to have whatever opinions you want but I'm asking you why you have these opinions and consider them the relevant issues in light of what has just trasnspired. - pierce
[2021-01-08 05:03:50] - trump didn't have to use twitter as his primary platform. apparently he created a parler account yesterday. is the freedom of the market only good when it empowers him, and you judge it when it chooses otherwise? - pierce
[2021-01-08 04:57:33] - Pierce: "Yes, I absolutely get that these companies are free to do this. But I'm also free to not like it. -Paul" -Paul
[2021-01-08 04:55:57] - paul: of all people, it's really weird to see you take a stand on a private company not being able to do what it wants with its assets. "the whole point of things like twitter and facebook" isn't the public good, right? I thought their financial self-interest served a healthy market which in turn leads to a fair and right society. - pierce
[2021-01-08 04:53:04] - yesterday going differently could've eliminated the opposition party in the legislature, or at least made it irrelevant. it could also have eliminated every democratically-elected person who might replace trump if there was any counterviolence, making that moot (remember when putin wasn't the president of russia for a while?). - pierce- pierce
[2021-01-08 04:49:39] - I mean, this isn't that hard, right? What if Youtube suddenly banned the DNC or Twitter banned Planned Parenthood or Facebook wouldn't let Biden buy ads? Would you all be making the same arguments? I highly doubt it. -Paul
[2021-01-08 04:47:55] - Daniel: No, but editorial pages have limited space and there's no sense of anybody (or most people) being able to print whatever they want in a newspaper whenever they want. Pretty much the whole point of things like Twitter and Facebook is that anybody can create an account and share whatever inane stuff they want. -Paul
[2021-01-08 04:47:11] - the vice president, who had defied trump yesterday morning by saying he would support the certification was there (as was his family). so was the speaker of the house. so was the president pro tempore of the senate. that's every elected official in the presidential line of succession, all at the top of the list. - pierce
[2021-01-08 04:46:40] - a: "do you not like it when netflix decides what content to publish?" Netflix isn't twitter? I can't just upload whatever content I want to Netflix. I really don't understand your analogy here. Netflix makes their own content. -Paul
[2021-01-08 03:57:53] - pierce: i'm not sure its worse than 9/11, but definitely not so much worse. 9/11 had thousands of people dead. UA93 was potentially destined for the capitol (some believe it may have been destined for the white house). is what happened yesterday so much worse than having a 757 and 44 people flown into the capitol rotunda? i doubt the joint session would have continued into the morning if that were the case. ~a
[2021-01-08 03:48:00] - pierce: regarding the investigations, apparently the senate sergeant at arms, the house sergeant at arms, and the capitol police chief are all resigning / being fired, in addition to the investigations. ~a
[2021-01-08 03:47:47] - pierce: "platforms shouldn't have been able to limit the president yesterday is beyond comprehension" dude, i brought it up, paul did not. i said it made me smile that trump was furious . . . if it matters i wasn't smiling literally, but on the inside. ~a
[2021-01-08 03:44:47] - pierce: "we could've lost the legislature as an independent branch of our government" how? i mean, i get it, somebody (other than rioters) could have been hurt. but they weren't. and the secret service have guns. lots of guns. i know democrats could have been harmed, but it wouldn't have been a simple job. most of the rioters did not have firearms. ~a
[2021-01-08 01:59:57] - this was so much worse than 9/11 in terms of being an existential threat to american democracy. saying that (private companies'!) platforms shouldn't have been able to limit the president yesterday is beyond comprehension. - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:59:23] - and so yesterday, instigated by the president, and then encouraged by his inaction and vague supporting words, we could've lost the legislature as an independent branch of our government. the remaining branch, the judiciary, is already idealogically controlled by the president's party and literally a third of them were appointed by him personally. - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:58:56] - yes, I think you're correct that nothing (within the formal rules) could be done about it. our system of government doesn't have any official safeguards against mass partisan violence, other than protective services that operate under partisan leadership. - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:47:00] - the press will be sad, but the procedures will change. things will get more locked down. its sad but true. but, also there will be investigations: everybody knew these people were coming and they knew their intentions. there will be investigations, imo. ~a
[2021-01-08 01:45:53] - "ability/mandate to protect the legistlature" with you on this one too. its because they were white. its because they were white they were allowed in. "what will stop this from happening again in the future with more competent actors behind it" they'll change procedures. things will change. the fact that congress buildings are fairly open is a constant point of pride with the press: i heard a dude on npr talking about it yesterday. ~a
[2021-01-08 01:43:39] - "...what would trump's three justices have done?" i'm totally with you on this one. even though they wouldn't have a majority, they'd be able to easily tip the scales if the case had even slivers of merit. ~a
[2021-01-08 01:40:33] - "could they have changed the majority party in the upcoming senate with these actions?" yes. what would be the alternative? its an interesting thought experiment though. if someone had, say, killed all of one party. the country would then likely have the other party majority and there's not a lot that can be done about it. right? ~a
[2021-01-08 01:37:59] - wow. ok, thanks for starting us off! where to begin?
~a[2021-01-08 01:37:33] - what did this incident tell us about the role of the different law enforcement agencies and their ability/mandate to protect the legistlature (or judiciary)? what will stop this from happening again in the future with more competent actors behind it? - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:37:04] - what if they'd interfered enough in the process to open up a supreme court case about whether the electoral certification had legally completed? what would trump's three justices have done? - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:36:57] - some example topics: what if they had found and executed a democratic senator from a state that might've appointed a republican replacement? could they have changed the majority party in the upcoming senate with these actions? - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:36:30] - i mean . . . i guess i did start us off yesterday. but, feel free to continue. ~a
[2021-01-08 01:35:24] - pierce: "is this what's front-of-mind right now" we don't have to only talk about the most important news of the day. we're allowed to talk about anything. well, almost anything . . . i mean, i agree, the fact that twitter silenced trump isn't the thing that matters. i brought it up, so if anyone is to blame, it should be me. regardless, i'm happy to talk about the coup. feel free to start us off. ~a
[2021-01-08 01:29:48] - I mean that specifically, to be clear. I understand that social media companies' role in our public discourse is a tricky issue. I'm saying this is not the test of that issue. this is extremely clear-cut and therefore 99,994th on the list of things we should be actually talking about the day after an attempted coup. - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:00:46] - on the list of the problems with yesterday, where does "the president didn't get to use his preferred form of communication" fall? of all people, the president is not lacking venues to speak to the public. he temporarily lost access to this one because he was using it to further inflame a violent situation that he caused. what are we even talking about, here? - pierce
[2021-01-08 01:00:39] - is this what's front-of-mind right now? the president held a rally inciting people to break into the capitol and prevent congress from legally recognizing that he'd lost the election. he then used twitter to post a video that, while technically telling people to go home, spent more time reasserting that the election was stolen and giving kind words to the mob. - pierce
[2021-01-07 22:28:20] - paul: similarly - is a newspaper obligated to publish a letter from a politician no matter what? I get you are pro free speech but Trump could also walk into the press room and get on tv at almost any moment of the day so its hard for me to feel like he is being infringed. -Daniel
[2021-01-07 22:19:41] - paul: hmmm, ok. well, lets try the netflix analogy some more? do you not like it when netflix decides what content to publish? ~a
[2021-01-07 22:18:23] - a: Yes, I absolutely get that these companies are free to do this. But I'm also free to not like it. -Paul
[2021-01-07 21:32:19] - https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/01/mayor-ted-wheeler-confronted-reportedly-punched-while-dining-in-nw-portland.html I guess this is the new normal for everybody now. - mig
[2021-01-07 21:29:52] - paul: when you break the law, twitters hands are (almost literally) tied. ~a
[2021-01-07 21:29:19] - otoh, reddit (and netflix, and facebook, and twitter), definitely would block inciting violence. fuck, everybody would block that because its straight up illegal. ~a
[2021-01-07 21:28:06] - paul: another example is reddit. dunno if you see how the sausage is made on reddit, but REGULAR users get to decide how the site is moderated. (also, to a certain extent, there are site-wide rules but they're looser than what a REGULAR user decides what to moderate out) ~a
[2021-01-07 21:26:34] - paul: comcast doesn't get to decide if you can watch the new birth of a nation, but netflix does get to decide if it wants to republish it. netflix has agreements (TOS but also other agreements) on what will get republish on netflix, and comcast straight up will allow all network traffic that isn't illegal (and if its encrypted, they obviously allow it through regardless). ~a
[2021-01-07 21:25:12] - paul: "It's all well and good when used against people you don't like... until it starts getting used against you" isn't this the way its supposed to be? netflix isn't comcast (i actually meant to say twitter isn't comcast here, but i'm going to stick with it because it might actually make it easier to explain.) if some shitty movie company makes a remake of the birth of a nation, netflix gets to decide if it wants to republish it. ~a
[2021-01-07 21:21:37] - a: "is it bad that this makes me smile?" I don't think so. "does anybody else feel this way?" I, personally, don't. I really don't like this path that the social media companies and tech giants have taken where they have increasingly taken it upon themselves to decide what kinds of speech are acceptable on their platforms. It's all well and good when used against people you don't like... until it starts getting used against you. -Paul
[2021-01-07 20:53:55] - a: sounds reasonable. - mig
[2021-01-07 20:49:01] - "wednesday, president trump has specifically complained that he was trying to send a tweet during his twitter lockout, and that he was furious that he couldn’t" is it bad that this makes me smile? does anybody else feel this way? ~a
[2021-01-07 20:37:06] - mig: looks like the dems are down ~a
[2021-01-07 20:36:57] - yah gotcha. i'll probably use the ira then. ~a
[2021-01-07 20:27:10] - a: From everything I've heard, IRA is usually a lot more flexible than 401(k) and typically allows for lower fees, so if you have the choice, then IRA is often better. You should be able to do 401(k) to 401(k) if you want (assuming there is no time limit on it). -Paul
[2021-01-07 19:44:38] - a: That is a big minimum. Maybe if we all pool together. I'm still working on .01% of that though. So I'm going to need yall to pitch in a lot. -Daniel
[2021-01-07 19:41:34] - daniel: gotcha, yah. in raytheon i have access to vitpx, which i obviously wouldn't have access to in an ira
(minimum investment $100,000,000.00. that's a lot of zeros.) ~a[2021-01-07 19:37:58] - unless you really like what you have in your 401k then IRA means you have more control over things. 401k might have better options if they have some deal worked out to give lower fees on something for example. -Daniel
[2021-01-07 19:36:15] - daniel: "I've generally been happy (enough)" yeah me too, generally. but the raytheon 401k (i left there 11 years ago!) don't have many good low-fee bond options. which is why i'm asking these questions! ~a
[2021-01-07 19:34:51] - daniel/paul: thanks for answering my questions. in my case it's a previous company, i'll check to see if they have fees, and if they do, i'll use a rollover instead. any thoughts on which would be better? an 401k->ira rollover or a 401k->401k rollover? (is the second one even allowed?) i know the near-retirement age rules for 401k vs ira ARE different. ~a
[2021-01-07 18:28:42] - a: I've never used a self directed but my experience is that there are additional fees associated with them. I've generally been happy (enough) with the 401k options I've had to not want to do self directed. -Daniel
[2021-01-07 17:39:37] - a: In order: Yes. I no longer work there. I thought the general rule of thumb is that company 401(k)s have higher fees than alternatives you can find elsewhere. Yes. Rollover to Vanguard and Merrill Edge (traditional 401(k) funds to Vanguard, Roth funds to Merrill). -Paul
[2021-01-07 17:36:55] - a: I held from 2017 onward, so I've seen bigger drops.
-Paul[2021-01-07 16:36:56] - paul: so based on your wording (past tense) you no longer use that? why not? after you leave a company you're allowed to keep using their 401k and you decided not to do that. why not? i assume you decided on an ira or 401k rollover instead? (which type of rollover and why?) if there are ANY fees on my self directed brokerage, i'm definitely going to consider an ira rollover instead. ~a
[2021-01-07 16:36:39] - i'm glad you won't be shocked. bitcoin-land is harsh. ~a
[2021-01-07 16:35:43] - a: Not sure I would necessarily call either a bubble, but they both certainly seem overvalued. A 50% drop for either wouldn't shock me. -Paul
[2021-01-07 16:32:10] - a: The Fool offered a self-direction option for their 401(k). I remember it had some additional fees, but I don't remember the specifics. A monthly or quarterly or annual fee? -Paul
[2021-01-07 16:10:12] - paul: both. i know you're asking which is *more* undeserving, so i'll dodge and say they're equally undeserving. both of them are in terrible shitty bubble territory. i hold much more money in btc than tsla (35:1), but i'm willing to bet that both could easily go down -50% let alone -20%. i think btc is slightly more likely to go -50% than tsla going -50%. ~a
[2021-01-07 16:05:52] - have you guys ever used a 401k with a . . . self directed brokerage? (the "name" on your 401k might be different, but it means you can invest your 401k in the open market) if so, do you see a lot of fees? do you see ANY fees? (over the ~$0.10ish required SEC fees)? are there any downsides to using it? any gotchas? ~a
[2021-01-07 15:58:07] - a: Honestly? I was kinda thinking the difference between 2021 high and 2021 low. But honestly, it doesn't matter which metric. I am curious what people think is the less deserving of this run-up. I think my money is on Tesla (almost literally). -Paul
[2021-01-07 15:40:52] - my answers might be different depending on which you mean. ~a
[2021-01-07 15:40:36] - paul: difference between today and the price ON december 31st is more than -20%? or difference between today and the yearly low is more than -20%? ~a
[2021-01-07 15:39:27] - More likely to drop 20%+ this year, Tesla or BTC? -Paul
[2021-01-07 15:02:58] - Er... sorry, meant yesterday, obviously. -Paul
[2021-01-07 14:58:03] - pierce: Nowhere near DC today. About as emotionally okay as I ever am (I suppose you can take that however you want). Hope all is well with you. -Paul
[2021-01-07 05:58:26] - i didn't go into dc today. nobody was wearing masks and those guys seemed pretty shady. fuck that, man. i was outside after the arlington curfew started, but i don't think i should be faulted because we all found out about the arlington curfew *when* it started. ~a
[2021-01-07 05:54:37] - I saw some stuff say that McConnell's speech should have been a high point of sorts since it was a pretty strong refuation of Trump and the Hawley/Cruz strategy but it got totally overshadowed since it happened like 3 minutes before shit hit the fan. -Daniel
[2021-01-07 04:03:26] - it makes me livid to watch republicans like gaetz and brooks, to applause, play up democrats as the real villains and this as an antifa false-flag operation. these people could've died at their own supporters' hands today and seem only upset that their opponents weren't targeted more carefully. - pierce
[2021-01-07 02:17:07] - hope you're all doing okay. I'm guessing none of you were in DC today so not in immediate danger, but I hope you're emotionally okay as well. - pierce
[2021-01-07 02:15:04] - with the confusion surrounding the DC National Guard today, the absence of Trump's involvement in various statements on that matter, and Pence standing up to Trump this morning and then getting verbally attacked by him and physically attacked by his followers, I suspect invocation of the 25th is more likely (or at least sooner) than impeachment. - pierce
[2021-01-07 01:53:54] - there are hundreds of people on the capitol grounds still (3 hours after curfew). whyyyyyy. i wonder why they aren't being arrested? blm protesters out way after curfew were, some of them, arrested. ~a
[2021-01-07 01:02:50] - mig: hmm, i'm not sure he's saying he'd be down for an impeachment. i think he's saying "shut up ted cruz, and shut up donald trump: we aren't going to stop the counting the electoral votes". i bet he'd vote against impeachment. and so would pence. so, they might still not have the votes in the senate for conviction? ~a
[2021-01-07 00:41:15] - a: https://youtu.be/9idESc8Kweg i dunno, it sounds like this guy might be considering it. - mig
[2021-01-07 00:34:57] - mig: well . . . maybe. ~a
[2021-01-07 00:34:49] - mig: right right . . . i know the charge doesn't have to list a law broken. i agree with inciting a riot. that would be fine with me. doubt it'll happen though. ~a
[2021-01-07 00:33:36] - a: inciting a riot? honestly impeachment is a political procedure and not a legal one, so the technical charge doesn't matter too much. - mig
[2021-01-07 00:32:22] - daniel: i tried to start, but there are too many examples of this to list. it's a complete night and day type situation. ~a
[2021-01-06 23:55:00] - daniel: "ahead" no. they definitely give you a tiny grace period. you have like 60 seconds after curfew starts to clear the area, and they probably give another ~10ish minutes to get out of the district? but yes, you're right: this time was chill relative to blm and it's not just the curfew. these white guys were allowed to do so much compared to black protesters at EVERY point. ~a
[2021-01-06 23:43:26] - Didn't police shoot out tear gas ahead of the curfew during DC BLM stuff? Police seem more chill this time around. -Daniel
[2021-01-06 21:42:53] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErE5LRkXYAw6K33?format=jpg ~a
[2021-01-06 21:34:04] - these pictures/videos on twitter/news are mind-blowing. pic, pic, pic, vid, vid. ~a
[2021-01-06 21:33:55] - mig: agreed. though, out of curiosity, what would the charges be? ~a
[2021-01-06 21:29:38] - a: i say again. impeach now. - mig
[2021-01-06 21:22:26] - finally trump responded on twitter (16:17 eastern). it starts off with "we had an election that was stolen from us, that was a landslide election, and everyone knows it". so, fanning the flames as usual . . . wtf. ~a
[2021-01-06 21:16:17] - that wasn't a tweet. he made that statement on national television. ~a
[2021-01-06 21:11:58] - joe biden: "i call on president trump to go on national television now" ~a
[2021-01-06 20:51:35] - adam kinzinger is a republican us congressman from illinois. ~a
[2021-01-06 20:44:59] - paul: she was wearing jeans, is what the washintonpost said. ~a
[2021-01-06 20:44:52] - Watching Fox & CNN. This is definitely crazy train. -Daniel
[2021-01-06 20:38:45] - paul: if it was a pol I think we would know. - mig
[2021-01-06 20:36:40] - a: The protestors? It didn't specify that it was a protestor. Could be a cop. Or politician. Or anybody. -Paul
[2021-01-06 20:35:39] - paul: yeah i saw that. my first thought was: wtf, how did they find a woman in that crowd. isn't it like 10:1 male? or more? ~a
[2021-01-06 20:33:51] - a: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-electoral-college-vote-count-2021/h_d8bff9f84f02109936d472ae431a240f "Woman treated for gunshot wounds on Capitol grounds" -Paul
[2021-01-06 20:31:28] - yeah, that's a fair criticism. but honestly, i'm not sure if nobody will get shot. at the end of the day, even if you're white in america, there are some lines you can't cross. you do eventually get shot. ~a
[2021-01-06 20:30:50] - a: I'm sure somebody (probably lots of people) will point out the color of the skin of the protestors as a reason why nobody has been shot. -Paul
[2021-01-06 20:26:46] - i assume this is also the capitol building. i honestly wonder why nobody has been shot yet (or i wonder if anybody has been shot yet). ~a
[2021-01-06 20:16:08] - this is a real picture. in what freakin world are we living? ~a
[2021-01-06 20:15:32] - mig: yikes. why would they deny it? like is there a logical explanation for this? isn't the capitol considered like a federal building? shouldn't the national guard get deployed regardless? ~a
[2021-01-06 20:12:50] - https://twitter.com/byaaroncdavis/status/1346908166030766080?s=21 - mig
[2021-01-06 20:03:16] - impeach him? i guess i missed some news, i just assumed the protests were about the electoral confirmation and the people protesting aren't here regarding any impeachable offenses. ~a
[2021-01-06 20:02:00] - Jesus this is all sorts of fucked up. Impeach him now I don’t care if its only for 2 weeks. - mig
[2021-01-06 19:55:07] - understood. i haven't looked into it at all, and i agree with your analysis. it's a strategy that worked or didn't work, and that's not clear, and they probably got a bad rap from the media. i'm not sure i agree on florida, but i guess i agree on sweden. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:50:58] - a: And I'm not at all saying they had a better approach. Maybe it will ultimately prove to be worse. But the verdict seems very much not in yet despite headlines from months ago. -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:50:14] - a: Sweden. Apparently the decided NOT to lock down (and instead basically try to lock away their elderly). Apparently they had some pretty bad death rates early on but it quickly leveled off. -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:49:52] - paul: ugh nm. i was the one that confused sweden and switzerland, oof. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:48:40] - paul: "All I heard from the media was how horrible a mistake": wait wait. sweden or switzerland? i heard this news about switzerland (for good reason) about herd immunity. i'm not sure what the news on sweden is, sorry. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:46:36] - a: "Mostly peaceful protestors" (I kid! I kid!) -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:46:14] - a:They were separate points (CFR and herd immunity). -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:29:10] - dozens of people. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:28:46] - there are literally protesters inside the building. jfc. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:26:55] - people have apparently gone *around* (through?) police boundaries. which is something i've literally never seen in a protest. and i've been to a bunch of recent dc protests. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:25:46] - a bit off topic, but its breaking right now. apparently people have stormed the congress building and pence was pulled out of senate for a security reason. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:25:31] - paul: you'd def look at cases or deaths. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:25:16] - paul: cfr? why would you ever look at the cfr regarding herd immunity. cfr is meaningless with regards to herd immunity. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:25:13] - a: For vaccine rollout, yes. That previous post was about COVID in general. -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:24:43] - a: Like, without looking, how do you think Sweden handled COVID? All I heard from the media was how horrible a mistake Sweden was making and everything, but if you at the data now, their CFR is just a few tenths of a percent above the US (lower than Italy) and they didn't have nearly as extreme of lockdowns (and might be ahead in terms of herd immunity). -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:23:49] - paul: "I think the numbers show differently" didn't you just quote a number about how new york is doing better than florida? (23 and 30 percent). ironically, the only story i heard on the topic was cuomo saying he was MAD about how badly NY is doing (how bad his own state has been doing regarding slow vaccine distribution). so . . . there's that? ~a
[2021-01-06 19:21:59] - a: It's not just that specific article. It's the whole trend as listed before. If you just followed the articles read and didn't dig into the numbers, you would have to assume that Florida was having a much worse time with COVID than NY. I know you apparently disagree, but I think the numbers show differently. -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:08:13] - paul: yes, that's the topic of the article. i guess you're complaining that the article topic is dumb, but that's the article topic, man. . . . his style is close to that of trump: attack, distract, redirect, project, etc. its infuriating when trump does it, so i have to assume its infuriating when desantis does it. ~a
[2021-01-06 19:08:08] - a: And I guess that's part of it. I don't think the charisma or dick-ishness of a politician should be coloring how favorably or unfavorably the media reports on them as much as it seems to do. I get it, DeSantis seems to be a dick (although from what I've hard, so is Cuomo), but that doesn't necessarily seem like it deserves to be a national news story. -Paul
[2021-01-06 19:05:51] - a: Heh, I almost followed that up with, "The article seems more concerned about how he was an ass to a reporter than any particular failing in vaccine rollout" -Paul
[2021-01-06 18:55:39] - if history is any metric, desantis has a tendency to being a dick. ~a
[2021-01-06 18:52:52] - paul: an article about desantis being a dick is evidence of media bias? was desantis being a dick? ~a
[2021-01-06 18:48:43] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/05/covid-19-vaccine-distribution-these-5-states-most-behind/4142478001/ According to USAToday, Florida is behind NY in terms of percentage of shots administered, 23% to 30%, so at least this seems a little more fitting. Still, Florida isn't in the bottom 5 (Virginia is, though) and NY isn't in the top 5. -Paul
[2021-01-06 18:47:37] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/opinions/ron-desantis-failed-constituents-covid-filipovic/index.html Saw this on CNN and felt like it was a fitting companion with the article I posted about Cuomo's vaccine rollout earlier. -Paul
[2021-01-06 17:39:32] - a: Probably? Short term returns often seem driven by what people think might happen based on recent events. I've seen lots of speculation that big moves today are because of what people think might happen with Dems in complete power (ie, more stimulus, more renewable energy, more drugs). -Paul
[2021-01-06 16:39:32] - understood right ok. no, other than clicking on the underlined things, i'm guessing its hard to make other images. the code is probably open source: it is called "open"ai after all. ~a
[2021-01-06 16:37:47] - Like I can't type "James Harden wearing a scottish kilt". -Daniel
[2021-01-06 16:37:02] - a: Yes but that is still just an example. Can you personally edit the underlined stuff? -Daniel
[2021-01-06 16:36:02] - daniel: i replied below about that. ~a
[2021-01-06 16:35:51] - daniel: did you click on the underlined stuff? ~a
prev <-> next