prev <-> next
[2021-01-20 19:12:35] - pirece: ok, that's how i originally read it. gotcha. still i'm with paul, (ignoring for a second, beginner investors) it would be irresponsible for investors to ignore foreign markets. and equally it would be irresponsible for foreign investors to invest with 0% in s&p500 companies. ~a
[2021-01-20 19:07:20] - should've said "I'd stop well short of saying it's a good idea for just anyone", that would've been clearer. - pierce
[2021-01-20 19:07:11] - 3 out of 4 of my top holdings are international: SHOP, MELI, SE (Canada, Argentina?, Singapore?) -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:01:40] - a: "i'm sure paul has some too" I used to track it more closely, but at a glance, the Freedom Portfolio has at least 4 international companies (out of 23) representing close over 32% of my portfolio in terms of dollar amounts. -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:00:35] - pierce: oof, you said anyone. to paul's point, you don't think anyone outside of the united states should be investing in the s&p500? ~a
[2021-01-20 18:58:59] - Regarding international investors investing in the US... if you are an experienced investor then I actually think it's irresponsible NOT to invest in the US. We're one of the strongest and most diversified economies in the world and avoiding the US means not investing in companies like Amazon and Apple and Google for the past few decades. -Paul
[2021-01-20 18:58:56] - pierce: "I'd stop well short of saying it's a good idea for anyone" i'd also stop short of that. would you stop so far short that it should be illegal? if not, i'll just say that i don't think i'm "anyone". i'm "adrian" and i think its ok for me to do it. ~a
[2021-01-20 18:57:01] - Pierce: But I've come to view drops that happen when they release short reports on companies that I hold as potential buy opportunities. -Paul
[2021-01-20 18:56:39] - Pierce: Unrelated to this specific Citron short attack on Gamestop, but Citron has done a ton of short pieces against companies I've held and the tone is always the same ("biggest fraud ever", "going to zero", etc) and they have been wrong on every one so far. They could be right here... -Paul
[2021-01-20 18:50:10] - pierce: i'm not an institutional investor. i'm an individual investor. and so are you. we both (probably . . . i haven't seen your 401k) invest in international equities. what's more, should i, an institutional investor, not be investing in shopify, or toyota motors, or sony, or shimano, etc? ~a
[2021-01-20 18:50:02] - the distance risk cuts both ways, too... an individual investor can't easily show up in delaware to sue for damages, and federal law enforcement would have a hard time arresting someone for insider trading in many countries. I'm not saying it should be fully illegal, but I'd stop well short of saying it's a good idea for anyone. - pierce
[2021-01-20 18:45:03] - a: as I said yesterday, institutional investors are different. all three concerns I just raised about individual investing abroad are mitigated by being a large company that can hire lawyers or local employees. - pierce
[2021-01-20 18:34:09] - pierce: i'm not sure how "broad" it should be. maybe i wouldn't suggest a beginner investor doing this out of the gate. but, i invest in foreign companies and you probably do too. (i mostly invest through my 401k in vtiax and vt, but also some individual stocks like tm, gctaf, shop, smnny, sne, ura, vwdry, acb, i'm sure paul has some too). i'm not sure why we would lock out a whole world from our markets? ~a
[2021-01-20 18:31:12] - and regardless of whether they should, that they would also happen to be the ones getting upvotes on reddit, multiple posts that are just different screenshots of the same tweet? - pierce
[2021-01-20 18:28:15] - a: interesting, you think individual investors should be broadly doing that? despite the fact that they presumably have less awareness of the cultural factors that might affect their investments, less access to legal venues if they get scammed somehow, less understanding of the regulatory structures? - pierce
[2021-01-20 18:24:45] - pierce: are you suggesting that they're astroturfing social media? regardless, i think investing in foreign stock markets should be lauded. ~a
[2021-01-20 18:20:18] - pierce: you say this sarcastically, but i'll say it non-ironically: amazing how passionate they are about investment strategies for an american company on the american stock market. ~a
[2021-01-20 18:17:49] - multiple top posts on WSB mocking a tweet from citron research (which seems to draw a lot of hate for being bearish on GME, don't know if they're a long-time enemy). but the timestamps shown in the screenshots of the tweet suggest the users are in eastern europe or western russia. amazing how passionate they are about investment strategies for an american company on the american stock market! - pierce
[2021-01-20 17:31:05] - a: Well, I think the theory is that he uses the money raised to buy stuff, but yes, that is also a downside. -Paul
[2021-01-20 17:30:37] - To me... I just don't like decisions being taken out of my hands like that. I prefer to know exactly what I am doing and to be intentional with it. -Paul
[2021-01-20 17:29:59] - "lots of people think that's a brilliant hedging strategy"
brilliant until the market drops X% then goes back up 1million%. ~a[2021-01-20 17:29:02] - a: Well, selling could be a taxable event. There could also be commissions. There is somebody I follow on twitter who has a hedging strategy that basically sells if/when the market drops X% so he has cash to deploy during drops and lots of people think that's a brilliant hedging strategy. -Paul
[2021-01-20 16:05:34] - ok, here's a weird scenario for you guys. what if i didn't want to hold individual stocks, i wanted to just hold the whole market. s&p500 or a world index or something (vt). but, i wanted to limit my loss! i didn't want to lose all of my money on a crash. why wouldn't i just create a sell stop order on the market? if i also create a buy stop order at the same price, i'm not sure what the potential problems are with this plan? ~a
[2021-01-20 15:55:33] - understood. ~a
[2021-01-20 15:53:58] - a: Right, even if it never is actually unlimited downside, it's still downside that is a lot higher than the upside. -Paul
[2021-01-20 15:52:27] - daniel: it was probably an actual stock option grant? just because people buy back private shares or unexecuted options when people leave, doesn't mean its not an actual option. there's also a concept of "phantom shares", though . . . it could have been that? ~a
[2021-01-20 15:49:48] - paul: i understand your point. saying it has (theoretically) unlimited downside seems to ignore how its used in practice: there are always limits in practice. but, i'll admit a lot of people in this world do get themselves into trouble maybe too easily. the 2020 robinhood suicide note comes to mind, "how was a 20 year old with no income able to get assigned almost a million dollars worth of leverage?" ~a
[2021-01-20 15:45:48] - a: I want to clarify my thoughts on shorting yesterday. It was less about deterring you because I thought you were being too careless. It was more a general opinion on options. Shorting has limited upside and (theoretically) unlimited downside. I prefer options with limited downside and unlimited upside, like buying a call on gamestop. -Paul
[2021-01-20 15:45:19] - But I've never bought individual shares of anything. I've sold some individual shares of a few things after inheriting them though. -Daniel
[2021-01-20 15:44:33] - a: Oh good point I technically did have some sort of stock option thing when I worked for a previous company though I'm dubious on it as an actual option (company was private and whenever someone quit the owners just bought back their options - so functionally was like a weird bonus type thing?) -Daniel
[2021-01-20 15:42:53] - a: Considering I think you and I are the only people here that would even consider active investing (ie, buying and selling individual stocks)... I think you are right. -Paul
[2021-01-20 15:31:08] - paul/pierce: if it matters, even though i did enable shorting on my account, i got some indecipherable error executing the trade, so i didn't end up shorting gme. i also planned on using a stop-market buy-to-cover to limit my loss. so, my losses wouldn't have *even* been limited by the balance of my account. i "eye roll" at financially ruinous. ~a
[2021-01-20 15:28:50] - paul: probably, yeah? my last company did a stock option grant, so i didn't buy or sell it, but i did execute it. my guess is nobody besides you or me here would consider buying or selling stock options/futures/etc to be a good move. i am only guessing though? ~a
[2021-01-20 15:12:45] - a: "almost always". Am I really the only person to have bought or sold an option here? For the record, I think the number is probably around 3-4 and most of those were covered calls (about as low risk as possible). -Paul
[2021-01-20 05:05:59] - says the only guy who's bought or sold a (publicly available) option here? ~a
[2021-01-20 02:45:49] - Daniel: Not that anyone asked me, but I'm mostly on the side of keeping it simple. For most that probably means index funds. For me, it almost always means simple, old-fashioned buying shares and holding (not loaning them out or selling shares I don't have). -Paul
[2021-01-19 22:43:17] - "billions of dollars are spent on it" doesn't usually correlate to something being straightforward.
- pierce[2021-01-19 22:16:29] - daniel: if it matters, i mostly don't know about it either. mainly, i'm just trying to learn. but i'd hardly call any of this "fancy". billions of dollars are sold short every day. billions of dollars are sold on the options market every day. the futures market is in the billions of dollars per day as well. ~a
[2021-01-19 22:09:50] - I generally consider myself at least somewhat knowledgeable about financial things but don't actually know that much about buying and selling stock in fancy ways and have totally failed at following this conversation. -Daniel
[2021-01-19 21:57:25] - pierce: compared to . . . holding nothing or holding the mutual fund? compared to holding nothing, yes the upside is zero. compared to holding the mutual fund, your upside is nonzero. ~a
[2021-01-19 21:56:30] - doesn't that make your upside zero, though? - pierce
[2021-01-19 21:43:12] - pierce: that's not the situation. . . . its buying one share (via an index mutual fund), and selling one share short. so, any price movements do not affect you (except in the situations where you're required to buy to cover your position). ~a
[2021-01-19 21:26:30] - a: and I think I disagree with you on "the downside is not unlimited if its a hedge". for example, not including fees or interest, buying a short and a share at the same price cancels out, right? so if you buy 2 shorts at $1 and hedge with 1 share at the same price, and the price goes up to $n (for n > 1, potentially infinite), then you're $n in the hole. the hedge reduced your downside but didn't make it finite. - pierce
[2021-01-19 21:04:20] - well, it could be financially ruinous, though admittedly that's unlikely. to paul's point, the upside is really limited for the levels of investment that would make the downsides tolerable by mere mortals. - pierce
[2021-01-19 20:58:30] - pierce: you actually don't have to hold out: being forced to buy to close your position isn't the end of the world. ~a
[2021-01-19 20:55:34] - a: okay, so that's a bit of what would deter me from trying to get a new short on it. uncertainty about how high the amplified spike can go and whether I can hold out that long. - pierce
[2021-01-19 20:48:58] - pierce: yes. its obviously not a black-and-white situation though: mixed in with: 0. the people who are forced to buy-to-close (which as you know, they're forced to buy-to-close at very different places) are 1. normal sellers who want to realize gains, 2. and new short sellers who are enticed by an even higher price, 3. mixed with a decrease in normal buyers because of the higher price. but . . . yes. ~a
[2021-01-19 20:44:10] - a: ...so if there are more short positions than shares available (more than 100% float), wouldn't that amplify the effect of the short squeeze? - pierce
[2021-01-19 20:37:48] - a: Not sure WSB thinks that much about their memes... or maybe they do. I have no idea. -Paul
[2021-01-19 20:30:49] - pierce: right. ~a
[2021-01-19 20:30:26] - a: "it's 100% affected by the people making new orders" presumably the squeeze is triggered by new orders, but the ongoing escalating effect is from people who already held short positions being pressured to buy to cut their losses. those purchases drive the price up further, pressuring more people who are short to buy to cover their positions, and so on. right? - pierce
[2021-01-19 20:28:58] - paul: not sure wsb wants trump as their spirit animal: his history with investments hasn't been so great. my pbw (greta thunberg) shares are doing pretty well since november 11th. ~a
[2021-01-19 20:25:26] - https://twitter.com/wallstmemes/status/1351625596435050498 Because people are talking about Wall Street Bets, I thought I would share this, which showed up on my twitter feed. -Paul
[2021-01-19 20:25:17] - pierce: yeah i doubt that would hold up, but who knows. i think we should just call him the constitutional crisis president. ~a
[2021-01-19 20:18:08] - now, presumably that'd lead to a supreme court battle about whether the pardon is valid if it wasn't announced while he was president. and who knows how that would go. - pierce
[2021-01-19 20:15:47] - pierce: in one answer, no. the short squeeze isn't affected by the shares held or the short positions held: it's 100% affected by the people making new orders. if the short interest is high, that doesn't tell us how many people are thinking of buying or selling in the near future. ~a
[2021-01-19 20:15:12] - on the pardon topic: one point I saw on another forum is that there may not be any enforceable rules about when you have to disclose the existence of a pardon. so he might have pardons for himself, conspirators, "donors", etc. in his back pocket if and when they're needed. - pierce
[2021-01-19 20:05:12] - a: in that situation, couldn't that amplify the risk and magnitude of a short squeeze? since each share potentially applies more than one share's "worth" of buying pressure on people trying to cover their short positions? - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:52:08] - pierce: sorry, i shouldn't have said "short interest", because that has a *very* different meaning. i meant to say "short interest as a percentage of float". ~a
[2021-01-19 19:49:52] - pierce: any time the short interest is greater than 100%, it doesn't just mean that a lot of people want to short, it also means that a lot of people want to buy. ~a
[2021-01-19 19:48:42] - pierce: it means a lot of people want to buy and a lot of people want to short. so to simplify, 260% = ~300%: if there was ONE share (and to further simplify and say float shares == outstanding shares): company IPOs, sells its one share to the market, someone buys it, leases it to a short seller (short interest = 100% of float). he sells it, someone buys it, leases it to a short seller (short interest = 200% of float). he sells it,... ~a
[2021-01-19 19:44:57] - a: sorry, I wasn't giving you a pop quiz, I asked because I don't know the ramifications (if any) myself. what does it mean to you? - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:18:46] - (not my real answer to your question, btw, just think it's funny) - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:17:50] - a: "what percent of your retirement is in equities?" https://i.redd.it/ihrrbh34z4961.png - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:16:52] - pierce: gme's short interest as a percentage of float is 260%. i do understand what that means. ~a
[2021-01-19 19:15:32] - a: sorry, I should've said that it's why I'm queasy about individual investing. hedge funds and other institutional investors are more likely to be able to hang on through a rough patch, and if they can't there's always the chance uncle sam will bail them out. I have no such luxuries, personally. - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:12:40] - (and yeah, technically paul said over 100% of their float was shorted, not 100% of shares... but it still seems like that'd easily be far more than 18%) - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:12:17] - pierce: "the fact that you think it's irrational intrinsically suggests you don't understand it well enough to predict it" how far do you take this argument? what percent of your retirement is in equities? i know, betting on individual companies != shorting individual companies != betting on the market, but its really just a continuum of risk appetite. betting $1 on something crazy is safer than betting $1m on the us market. ~a
[2021-01-19 19:11:36] - a: do you know anything about the ramifications of a stock being more than 100% short, as paul suggested the other day for GME? this article mentions tesla being the most-shorted at some point in early 2020 with 18% of outstanding shares. - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:07:52] - a: I'm really not an expert. I like that buffett quote, it kinda captures why the stock market makes me queasy. the whole point is that you can capitalize when you predict that others are behaving irrationally (over- or undervaluing a stock) but the fact that you think it's irrational intrinsically suggests you don't understand it well enough to predict it. - pierce
[2021-01-19 19:05:27] - paul: the downside is not unlimited if its a hedge. the downside is not unlimited if i hold (large amounts of) vtsax. if gme doubles, i get something like $7 for every $100k i hold in us equities. ~a
[2021-01-19 19:02:43] - But I'm also the guy who was perfectly fine YOLO-ing some options with Gamestop (albeit ones with limited downside) and who also has some money in BTC and Tesla (who everybody likes to call bubbles). -Paul
[2021-01-19 19:01:53] - I'm mostly with Pierce in terms of shorting Gamestop being risky. You can mitigate it by just shorting one share, but then your upside is, what? $40? And the downside is still (theoretically) unlimited. -Paul
[2021-01-19 18:59:54] - Wait? I'm the Wall Street Bets expert? I know a lot about WSB because most of the people I follow like to make fun of them (mixed with maybe a tiny bit of envy perhaps since their strategy seems to have largely been working lately). -Paul
[2021-01-19 18:59:29] - daniel: i would not. gme's total market cap is only 2 billion. there's a reason "pump and dump" is illegal: small numbers of people, betting large amounts of money, can move a single stock. ~a
[2021-01-19 18:58:20] - pierce: "given what I understand about people with gambling addiction, pretty deep" agreed. warren buffet: "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". which is why i'd make this bet with one share: it'll take some weird arguments to convince me that shorting *one share* of gme, for a short period of time, is a horrible move. ~a
[2021-01-19 18:58:13] - pierce: I would be hesitant to credit wsb with any real noticeable effects in any stock. -Daniel
[2021-01-19 18:56:08] - pierce: "the potential downside is terrible" here is where i might disagree: my back-of-the envelope math i get is that $14k of vtsax contains $1 gme (if you were to $14k of the US stock market, then you already hold $1 of gme). so, shorting $1 of gme can be a hedge? if the gme doubles, and you hold, $14k in US stocks, and have shorted $1 of gme, then you end up (more-or-less) even. fees obviously skew this slightly. thoughts? ~a
[2021-01-19 18:56:04] - how long can WSB keep inflating GME's price (assuming it's a major factor in the recent behavior) before they hit a wall? how deep will they dig into their wallets to keep the party going? given what I understand about people with gambling addiction, pretty deep. - pierce
[2021-01-19 18:49:26] - but it's kinda like asking if you should short a ponzi scheme. if you can hold the position long enough for the scheme to collapse, then sure. but if not (or if you might be mistaken) the potential downside is terrible. - pierce
[2021-01-19 18:48:34] - pierce: Wallstreetbets is not a place for sound investment philosophy. Its about YOLO and bankrupt or big wins. -Daniel
[2021-01-19 18:48:21] - paul is the wsb expert here. (mostly) i only see stuff that makes it to the main page. i agree though. the feel i get is: yolo with large amounts of money. not so much about long-term growth. ~a
[2021-01-19 18:46:17] - I mean, at a glance it doesn't seem like the tone there is about sound investing principles, it's about being on a bandwagon and hyping each other up. I don't know much about the subreddit, though, do you? - pierce
[2021-01-19 18:41:41] - pierce: i mean, yeah, this is why we have shorting. why the wallstreetbets people aren't like: this is dumb, we should short gme? maybe i'll short gme? (i've never shorted before, so it'll be one share assuming that is allowed). ~a
[2021-01-19 18:39:40] - the wallstreetbets subreddit has apparently been swarming GME. don't know what that's about or what connection it has to the recent behavior but I wouldn't make assumptions about when or how the stock will start to reflect reality a bit more closely. - pierce
[2021-01-19 18:38:24] - paul: hmmm. i don't see it that way. if you took all of the time i spend watching bad tv (subjective) or . . . tv shows i've already seen . . . or twitter/reddit doomscrolling . . . and spend that playing with a very cute pet, i dunno, i think i must have way too much time on my hands i guess? ~a
[2021-01-19 18:33:23] - re: cake is a lie. Some people have way too much time on their hands. -Paul
[2021-01-19 18:18:59] - a: And I think the founder of Chewy is well respected and people think he can somehow turn them into an online retailer? Not sure. I never wanted to go long on Gamestop. I just wanted to take advantage of an over 100% short position and the timing of new consoles being released. -Paul
[2021-01-19 18:17:13] - a: The bull case is that the new investors are magical and can turn it into something shiny and new. I honestly don't know much more specific than that. There is some deal with Microsoft on revenue sharing over console sales or something that seems to be getting blown out of proportion. -Paul
[2021-01-19 18:04:27] - 24 hours left. is everyone betting that trump will (try to) pardon himself? i'm on the fence, but i'm really not sure why he *wouldn't* try to pardon himself. nixon was pardoned in a very general way ("all offenses against the us"). otoh, nixon didn't try to pardon himself: why not? the constitution lacks details about the rules of the potus pardon power, i'm not sure any laws that limit it would stand, right? ~a
[2021-01-19 17:37:53] - . . . i kinda want to short game-stop. paul, what's the bull case? ~a
[2021-01-19 17:25:25] - the cake is a lie ~a
[2021-01-19 17:25:20] - ah gotcha. ~a
[2021-01-19 16:40:09] - a: Pretty sure. To be clear, by "even after it had popped" I mean back in like October of 2020 when I gave up on my plan because it had gone from $5 to $15. -Paul
[2021-01-19 14:55:41] - paul: are you sure? how much would you had to put into the bet? again, options are usually crazy expensive. for instance, right now 1000 calls of gme feb26 @ 49 costs $8250, then to execute will be another 49k. any clue how to look for historical option information? like how much the "last" price was for options three weeks ago? ~a
[2021-01-19 14:47:00] - I really need to stop following GME. Up another 25% today. I could've done my crazy options bet even after it had popped and still made out like a bandit. -Paul
[2021-01-19 12:16:33] - Pierce: I would need to learn more about the Gamestop thing to know if it was funny business or not. I mean, they are apparently on their way out the door thanks to new ownership and the stock is at like a 5 year high... why wouldn't they sell their shares? -Paul
[2021-01-18 23:17:09] - criminy, the writers are so lazy lately. parler has new hosting from epik (who also host 8chan, the daily stormer, and gab). the CEO of epik is literally named rob monster. - pierce
[2021-01-16 02:11:06] - or maybe it doesn't, I'm just projecting my wary bemusement about the gamestop rally onto the normal behavior of leadership in exodus. - pierce
[2021-01-16 00:28:45] - this smells funny: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gamestop-leaders-pocket-millions-way-215325884.html - pierce
[2021-01-15 20:33:17] - verily. ~a
[2021-01-15 19:59:34] - a: I'm guessing you would happily trade that sense of schadenfreude, in exchange for Trump not having done the horrible things in the first place. so don't beat yourself up. - pierce
[2021-01-14 21:48:32] - when a bad person that does strictly horrible things every day all day long, gets a taste of karma, that makes me smile. maybe it shouldn't, but it does. ~a
[2021-01-14 21:47:18] - paul: (maybe pedantic) i never said i was happy that trump was banned, or that i was happy that trump did stuff that was ban-worthy, or that i was happy that twitter had to ban trump. i said it made me happy (made me smile), that, after the ban went through, trump was trying to tweet about something specific and was furious that he couldn't. his pain makes me happy: not the horrible things that lead us here or that twitter was forced to do what it did. that is sad. ~a
[2021-01-14 20:44:42] - relief? - pierce
[2021-01-14 20:28:19] - Paul: Yeah I think big picture wise its pretty bad to have to pull a politicians twitter account. On a smaller scale Trump being frustrated/upset over losing twitter gives? provides? schadenfreude. I'm not sure the verb to use in front of schadenfreude. -Daniel
[2021-01-14 19:57:43] - At the same time, I honestly don't blame people who were thrilled about it. I completely get it. Emotionally, I'm for anything that gets the blowhard to shut up. I'm just worried about the consequences. -Paul
[2021-01-14 19:56:26] - Honestly, what immediately caught my attention was his first sentence: "I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter", which seems like almost a direct response to Adrian's question about being happy about the ban. It seems like, at the very least, he and I agree that even if it was necessary, it's not a victory to celebrate. -Paul
[2021-01-14 19:49:43] - Pierce: "I believe this was the right decision for Twitter." Cynically, one could take that as saying: "This takes the heat off the company (and me) from angry employees, users, and others who have wanted Trump banned for awhile. -Paul
[2021-01-14 19:40:02] - *shrug* I think having the third unspoken principle "I don't want to be responsible for preventing violence" take a higher priority than the other two would let him square it just fine. he inverted the laws of robotics: protecting himself first, then protecting other people, then allowing others to dictate his actions. don't have to worry about the latter two conflicting with each other if you can just serve the former.
- pierce[2021-01-14 19:29:54] - Pierce: Right, that's where I think Dorsey and I disagree. He seems to think this was necessary, despite disagreeing with the move. Not sure how he squares those concepts. Maybe it's like a killing baby Hitler thing? At least he realizes the potential problem behind the actions he has taken. -Paul
[2021-01-14 19:05:44] - I can't imagine he's naive enough to believe that people would magically become nicer and not want to incite violence using a decentralized platform. centralized social media and those companies' algorithms have contributed to radicalization but they're by no means its sole source. - pierce
[2021-01-14 19:01:13] - also, his positions are at odds with each other. they banned trump and other accounts because they believed preventing a violent coup is more important than free speech. but they want to take that decision out of their own hands in a way that would likely make that stance unenforceable by anyone. which suggests they want to avoid the responsibility of preventing violence, more than they actually want to prevent violence. - pierce
[2021-01-14 19:00:24] - paul: I hadn't heard about the bluesky thing, them trying to develop a decentralized social media standard for which twitter would just be a client. sounds like dorsey's got a case of blockchain brain, when a federated solution like mastodon would serve the purpose similarly. - pierce
[2021-01-14 18:12:35] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-speech-probably-defensible-every-court-except-perhaps-senate-n1254258 This is more about Trump's speech at the rally than his tweets, but apparently an NBC legal analyst thinks it was probably legal. -Paul
[2021-01-14 18:00:39] - https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690 While I don't think I agree with Jack Dorsey completely, I am glad that he seems to be concerned by many of the same things I am regarding the social media bans in the wake of the attack on the Capitol building. -Paul
[2021-01-14 16:14:54] - yah. we don't know when he bought. it could be he bought them months ago at a time where foreseeing this would have been even more difficult. options, every time i've looked at them, always seemed like a bad deal (i mean, that is kinda the point, if they're too good of a deal, the price changes) ~a
[2021-01-14 16:12:56] - a: Okay. I just get confused with options math (another reason why it would be a bet... a non-zero chance I would just mess it up with user error). I had in my mind something more akin to a couple hundred dollars, which still would've ended up turning into tens of thousands of dollars, which would've been nice for a gain over a few months.
-Paul[2021-01-14 15:48:57] - paul: i don't think so, no? i see what math you're doing (1000*.0726) and even though that math does check out, it seems at odds with other math i'd try to do (like $1129723.60/14527.58% which gives $7776). still, even $7k to get $1m is pretty nice
~a[2021-01-14 14:40:47] - a: Am I reading this right that I could've spent ~$72 on some calls and made > $1 million? -Paul
[2021-01-13 23:35:40] - paul: here you go, this is for you! you could have made four million ~a
[2021-01-13 21:40:16] - a: that doesn't bode super-well for republican defections in the senate, and the "I may support removal" leaks from mcconnell's office yesterday may just have been reputation laundering (really wish maggie haberman would push back on anonymous sources more, but on the other hand they've raised her profile significantly) - pierce
[2021-01-13 21:35:15] - Stupid golden state. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 21:35:07] - Paul: Thanks, its been awhile coming. I hoped somehow Rockets would pull it together but last week and last two games against the lakers were bad.
-Daniel[2021-01-13 21:34:12] - 10 republicans voted for impeachment in the house. ~a
[2021-01-13 21:19:54] - Daniel: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1349463753465720836 Sorry. -Paul
[2021-01-13 21:16:20] - pierce: agreed. ~a
[2021-01-13 21:12:06] - daniel: FWIW, if you think it might be depression-related that person may benefit from some supportive words right now, that this isn't the end of the world. I don't know how your team is affected so there might be a lot of negative feedback piling onto their self-loathing. - pierce
[2021-01-13 21:10:33] - Daniel: And it's not like he was "on-site" or in other meetings or whatever. I think the idea was just he wasn't working at all except for maybe a few hours a week at most. I have no idea if it was a situation where he was somehow able to get all of his work done or not, but I also got the impression it had been going on for years. -Paul
[2021-01-13 21:09:24] - Daniel: When I was in high school, I had an internship with the Army over the summer working with civilian engineers. There was one guy who I maybe saw in the office about once a week for maybe an hour or two. I got the impression from everybody else that that was normal and he just was hardly ever there. -Paul
[2021-01-13 21:09:20] - daniel: did it not come up when his stuff was carrying from sprint to sprint? - mig
[2021-01-13 21:09:03] - agile practices usually at least shorten the amount of time before you can no longer ignore the problem, though if you don't address it you can just put the person through repeated small episodes. so instead of a background radiation of one gigantic fuck-up, your brain gives you repeated fuck-up microdoses. I think the former is more dangerous during the episode, and the latter is more dangerous for someone's long term self-image. - pierce
[2021-01-13 21:05:50] - Pierce: Fair enough. Yeah I don't know if it applies or not but does at least give a possibility. And true enough on vagaries ability to get by. I just wouldn't have thought for so long. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 21:03:36] - pierce/daniel: yeah, i think its probably super common. even when not wfh. having regular mini demos are nice because it clears the air for everybody. not every project does regular mini demos. they probably should. ~a
[2021-01-13 21:01:14] - I'm not defending it, just saying in many systems there's a lot of incentive to vaguely say things are going okay until you're called on the details, and a lot of incentive to vaguely assume things are going okay until those details become essential. depression (not that that was necessarily the situation here) can make that a coping mechanism, avoiding the immediate conflict because you're barely hanging on as it is. - pierce
[2021-01-13 21:00:42] - I'm not super proud to admit that I was in a situation like that not long after college. I was having a major depressive episode (didn't recognize it as such at the time), it was a waterfall-style project where I was the only dev and there was only one milestone, and my PM was way overloaded with other projects. That lasted about four months of a six month project, and I was lucky that I was mostly able to make up for the lost time. - pierce
[2021-01-13 20:56:21] - I mean at some point things are due right? I mean I don't think I'm under a microscope or anything but my manager does talk to us and we do mini demo's and talk to testers and make progress etc. So like what project just has nothing for six weeks? Its bad on him and he is going to have consequences but it also makes me question the manager / project as well. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 20:44:31] - daniel: C) how common do we think this is in our covid-wfh world? ~a
[2021-01-13 20:39:41] - A) How did that person think that was cool to just not do anything? B) Why did it take 1.5 months for anyone to notice? -Daniel
[2021-01-13 20:39:07] - Some guy at my work is in trouble for apparently not doing any work since end of November but telling everyone he was fine and didn't need any help. (not on my project or anyone I know personally) Boggles my mind some how that comes to pass. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 20:15:19] - I actually never thought about the possibility of a stock being more than 100% short. I understand how it's possible but it really seems like it ought not to be allowed, as it takes a largely-unlimited risk in the market and amplifies it without adding anything of value. am I off-base? - pierce
[2021-01-13 19:27:10] - understood, thanks. ~a
[2021-01-13 19:26:42] - a: Yup. I still agree with that. That's why it was "tried to look into buying" (ie, it was completely new to me) and why I called it a "bet". I didn't consider it an investment. In my mind, it was more akin to maybe owning some bitcoin or whatever other tiny bets I make all the time. -Paul
[2021-01-13 19:10:56] - mig: agreed, but the console manufacturers clearly want to be digital-only (understandably) and are moving aggressively in that direction. the console game side of gamestop's business will only continue to shrink, and that was one of the few purposes of their brick-and-mortal presence. - pierce
[2021-01-13 19:06:08] - pierce: They made much less of the digital unit though,. The disc version is the more commonly available (i speak in relative terms). We're not quite there at going to digital only. - mig
[2021-01-13 18:58:19] - paul: usually you vote against trying to predict short-term market timing. i'm with your usual thoughts on this: i try to avoid making any short-term decisions. sometimes i fail, but its truly rare. short-term market changes are very often irrational and based on few actual facts. predicting irrational behavior is hard. i try to ignore losing out on short-term price movements. ~a
[2021-01-13 18:54:23] - Pierce: At one point, somehow, I think over 100% of their float was sold short. Felt like that couldn't persist and that we would see a short squeeze over the holidays when they didn't go bankrupt (high bar to clear, I know). I'm not at all sold on them being around 3+ years from now, though. -Paul
[2021-01-13 18:52:55] - Pierce: Which is why I was interested in making a small (emphasis on small) bet on a short term turnaround and not interested in buying and holding it for awhile.
-Paul[2021-01-13 18:33:26] - I mean, they could always try to become their own distribution platform (but could only compete for the PC market which is saturated with major players already), their own publisher (also a tough market) or their own cloud gaming service (unproven and competing against infrastructure giants), and why absorb gamestop's baggage instead of just investing in those things directly? - pierce
[2021-01-13 18:28:05] - the PS5 charges extra for the model with a disc drive, the base unit is digital-only through the playstation store. other than selling the consoles and peripherals themselves (which are a mostly uniform ecosystem so there's no benefit to "browsing" for them in a physical store) what is gamestop going to do differently? - pierce
[2021-01-13 18:24:53] - "Traders betting on Cohen’s plans to transform the chain in the image of his highly successful Chewy helped fuel the now three-day rally" uhhh... Chewy is still selling a physical product, they got this much boost from hiring a couple executives vaguely planning to "make GameStop a more digitally focused retailer"? - pierce
[2021-01-13 18:17:18] - And now for something completely different: Back in August of 2020, I tried to look into buying options on Gamestop (GME) to essentially bet on them going up over the coming months (holiday season, console release, etc). It was around $5 then. After a 60% pop today, it is at $32. I'm glad I don't know how to calculate how much I lost out on.
-Paul[2021-01-13 17:55:59] - a: almost had me there. - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:49:21] - the house is (literally now as we speak) debating the vote on impeachment. it'll probably pass, and go to the senate. and donald trump. is. pissed. ~a
[2021-01-13 17:47:03] - paul: npr was discussing ranked-choice voting yesterday. amid all the other stuff in the news, they talked about ranked-choice voting for a while. they talked about 3rd parties (and "spoilers") and ranked-choice voting. ~a
[2021-01-13 17:45:27] - yeah, while I think it's possible this effort included people so detached from reality that they'd still think they should brag about violence after the coup failed and they were arrested, most have to be aware or have been told by their lawyers not to admit anything they don't have to. - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:43:54] - Daniel: I believe party affiliation trends are lower for both parties, but it hasn't really shown up at the ballot box yet because of all the reasons I'm sure we're all aware of (two party system, first past the post voting, etc). I don't really see that changing significantly until we get more widespread ranked choice voting. -Paul
[2021-01-13 17:43:45] - mig: yah. some of them might be looking at charges for both. ~a
[2021-01-13 17:41:40] - a: true, but trespassing gets you way less years than intention to commit murder. - mig
[2021-01-13 17:40:53] - many of them will go to jail regardless of what words they use. ~a
[2021-01-13 17:40:21] - daniel: nobody wants to go to jail. ~a
[2021-01-13 17:39:34] - Its also interesting to me that I havent' read about a true believer type being arrested yet. Maybe its out there and I missed it. But I would have expected a couple of people to be arrested and totally own it like "yeah I wanted to get in there and protect america by killing pence!" etc. They all flip immediately to OOPSIE DAISY. I've never been caught up in a mob so while I know its a thing maybe its stronger than I anticipate? -Daniel
[2021-01-13 17:34:02] - Pierce: I'm maybe Greenwald's biggest defender here and even I agree he is often overly hyperbolic and touchy and prone to exaggeration. This looks to be another example of that. I'm still interested in returning to this topic in a month or two for a post-mortem to see how things look outside the heat of the moment and what assumptions ended up being true or false. -Paul
[2021-01-13 17:29:58] - So I always wonder at what point do R's actually shift / change their platform in some way. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 17:29:36] - Paul: I was thinking of the recent slide as starting with the Tea Party but as I alluded to there are elements that go WAY back past that. I think they will return to "normal" as well to some degree but I think that "normal" is the trend of R's shrinking as a party. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 17:29:17] - and the thing is, greenwald could argue his points on the merits without lying. he's trying to argue that parler is fundamentally comparable to any other social network, and he could make that point just by noting that the arrestees were active on facebook or twitter, and that dorsey and zuckerberg make political donations too. - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:27:15] - pierce - SC2 doesn't have to be twitchy. Just focus on macro and A move your army! Its what I do like 75% of the time.
But I do take your point that its not a at your own pace kind of game. -Daniel[2021-01-13 17:27:00] - Daniel: ie, no major splits or collapses in the party. I would love to be wrong and see the demise or splintering or whatever of the Republican Party, but I just don't see it happening. Tribalism is too strong. -Paul
[2021-01-13 17:26:20] - Daniel: Question, is your statement of "on the this descent as a party since at least the Tea Party" inclusive of the Tea Party or not? My prediction (which is worth little to nothing) is that we will all be shocked by how quickly things return to "normal" in that the Republican Party stays a major national party averaging ~50% of the vote in most elections. -Paul
[2021-01-13 17:23:04] - Pierce: Damned annoying tenses. -Paul
[2021-01-13 17:20:41] - mig: fair enough, but since there's no universal standard for "this is the maximum amount of violent content your platform can have and still be acceptable" we'll never settle that question, even with all the leaks. it'll always be up for discussion. greenwald is going way further than that, though, denying things that are trivially provable about parler's content. - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:19:05] - Does Trump / Capitol Riots finally split the party enough to force reform or do they continue to embrace this style? philosphy? strategy? not sure the right word to use there and continue to shrink as a share of national voters. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 17:16:31] - -Daniel
[2021-01-13 17:16:30] - On a different front from Parler / Free Speech I'm curious where R's go from here. It seems like they have been on the this descent as a party since at least the Tea Party (though in some respects much MUCH longer) and I'm always curious if they will be able to reform in some way where they are more viable and can try to be a majority of the country again. Not just via the EC. Like what would R's need to do to win the popular vote again.
[2021-01-13 17:15:11] - pierce: sure, making such a definitive claim that can be easily disproven is pretty reckless. And the "killing the competition" conspiracy is also bonkers. I will only point out that he does have a valid point about how much is said about w/ regard to the justification of shutting down parler is perception vs. reality (by everyone's admission here, we don't know). - mig
[2021-01-13 17:13:45] - twitchy. hmmm. ~a
[2021-01-13 17:13:14] - paul: thanks for the invite, but I'm not really into quick twitchy multiplayer games anymore. if we did another jackbox-style night at some point I would definitely be interested in that, though. - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:11:27] - here's his article, presumably. haven't finished reading it, but skimming it for parler he asserts "Parler was not founded, nor is it run, by pro-Trump, MAGA supporters", another blatant lie (Rebekah Mercer is a co-founder) - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:11:17] - paul: neither. c. 90% of the parler users uploading videos on the mall uploaded videos between the whitehouse and the capitol as they moved. also the number is pretty round. it's 90%ish. 90%ish of the parler users on the mall marched on the capitol. i know because i've looked at the parler video geodata: https://gofile.io/d/7Wg83o . ~a
[2021-01-13 17:10:38] - paul: Yeah thursday for sc2 (9pm est for pierce if he plays
) -Daniel[2021-01-13 17:08:43] - regarding greenwald's research, I just noticed his follow-up tweet: "For those asking the basis for that last claim: I spent the weekend reporting on the removal of Parler from the internet, including reviewing lots of documents and interviewing people associated with the companies involved, including Parler. The article will be up shortly." the Ochs thing was published before the weekend, so really no excuses. - pierce
[2021-01-13 17:05:14] - Daniel: We're doing Thursday for SC2, right? Pierce, you should join us! -Paul
[2021-01-13 17:03:51] - no loopholes for greenwald! he said zero of the arrests were active parler users, past tense. - pierce
[2021-01-13 16:59:10] - a: Sorry, I'm still confused. Is it: (A) 90% of Parler users marched on the Capitol or (B) 90% of people who marched on the Capitol were Parler users? Either way, how do you know? -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:58:06] - a: "because there are zero active parler users period? because parler is offline?" Ha! There you go. He's safe. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:57:15] - Pierce: "will you agree that it's screwed up that greenwald would make such a baldly false assertion" Sure, that definitely looks like he was wrong. I would be curious of his response if called out with that. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:48:00] - paul/pierce: maybe greenwald's assertion is technically true because there are zero active parler users period? because parler is offline?
~a[2021-01-13 16:45:38] - paul: 90% of the people on the mall on 2021-01-06? i'm not sure what other filters were included. i'm only trying to suggest that greenwald's assertion is ridiculous (and false, technically or otherwise). ~a
[2021-01-13 16:43:46] - paul: "Is that enough time to respond to what I assume was a torrent of take down requests" yes. i'd expect these kinds of things to generally be handled by an active moderation community in less than hours. in many cases minutes or seconds. (reddit has an *optional* system where stuff can even be positively moderated instead of negatively moderated but i'll admit that wouldn't work for something like twitter) ~a
[2021-01-13 16:41:01] - a: "if you look at the public parler data, like 90%+ of them marched from the whitehouse to the capitol" Wait, I want to make sure I understand, but are you saying that 90% of Parler users marched on the Capitol? It's hard to believe it is that high. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:39:05] - a: "no i don't think that is an accurate representation of what happened" Well, how long after the attack was Parler taken down? A few days? Is that enough time to respond to what I assume was a torrent of take down requests? Did anybody even request that content gets taken down? Like you say, I guess we'll find out. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:36:55] - Re: Nicholas Ochs, I find it a little ironic that the picture in that article is from his Twitter feed. They single out Parler, but the opening paragraph says, "boasted on social media". I'm genuinely curious how much of the planning or whatever went down on Parler vs other forms of communication. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:35:13] - paul: "but apparently now AWS won't allow them to" i mentioned the addressing of illegal speech and the terms of service. ~a
[2021-01-13 16:34:21] - paul: "As far as I can tell, Parler wasn't really given the chance to take down violent content before getting shut down" unless you've read something i haven't, no i don't think that is an accurate representation of what happened. but, like miguel pointed out, we're taking amazon's word for what happened. lawsuit might be enlightening on parler's side of the story? ~a
[2021-01-13 16:27:30] - a: "because section 230 allows them to?" Yes, but apparently now AWS won't allow them to. Cloud providers don't have to follow section 230. Parler didn't get shut down by the government, it got shut down by AWS. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:26:19] - a: "violent speech is removed" Sure, it's removed after the fact, but we're talking about somehow preventing violent actors from using the platform before they do violent things, which is far trickier. As far as I can tell, Parler wasn't really given the chance to take down violent content before getting shut down. -Paul
[2021-01-13 16:17:18] - pierce: do you think he did four minutes of searching? ~a
[2021-01-13 16:16:44] - a: I mean he's definitely a liar on the basis of the Ochs counterexample (the dramatic certainty with which he made the "Zero." claim makes him a liar even if he didn't know about Ochs, it was easy to find and published three days before his tweet). - pierce
[2021-01-13 16:12:23] - if you look at the public parler data, like 90%+ of them marched from the whitehouse to the capitol. no idea how many of them entered the building, and no idea how many of them (inside and outside the building) were arrested, but greenwald is either a liar, or found some really exceptionally unlikely (or otherwise surprising) information. ~a
[2021-01-13 16:12:21] - will you agree that it's screwed up that greenwald would make such a baldly false assertion, in service to the idea that parler wasn't actually being used for organizing and that it's just an ideological and anticompetitive witch hunt? - pierce
[2021-01-13 16:03:16] - Circling back to a thing said earlier, I disagree that Amazon's employees didn't have an impact. They've walked out on their employer before and it's hard not to imagine them doing the same if their demands to shut parler down hadn't been met. And that seems like a PR nightmare. - mig
[2021-01-13 16:01:58] - pierce: i only did ~0 minutes of searching. and i didn't even search for the right thing. ~a
[2021-01-13 16:01:24] - But as Mig pointed out https://i.pinimg.com/originals/14/c7/50/14c750b27e44c61e4ed7b417703231d1.jpg from AWS. Hence courts? -Daniel
[2021-01-13 16:01:04] - okay, took like four minutes of searching. Nicholas Ochs, founder of the Hawaii chapter of the Proud Boys. arrested for taking part in the riot. FBI affadavit included Ochs's parler comments. Greenwald is not only technically not technically right, he's technically not right and was wrong at the time he posted it. - pierce
[2021-01-13 16:00:13] - To paraphrase Adrian I think AWS' position isn't that you have to be perfect but that you have to try and AWS felt that Parler wasn't even trying. -Daniel
[2021-01-13 15:55:39] - it'll probably come out in the lawsuit? i haven't been following the lawsuit. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:55:01] - we are. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:54:50] - "parler was not doing these things" citation needed? we are kind of taking amazon's word on this, aren't we? - mig
[2021-01-13 15:52:29] - seems fairly noncontroversial, and i feel like we've discussed this, right? ~a
[2021-01-13 15:51:54] - paul: "why would any site ever allow a comments section or message board" because section 230 allows them to? as long as they're addressing illegal speech (and as long as they're following the terms of service), then i think they're mostly in the clear? parler was not doing these things. and amazon decided they weren't following the terms of service. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:50:32] - paul: "Twitter and Facebook obviously also haven't been able to prevent extremist from using their platforms either" they haven't? i mean i believe you, but violent speech is report-able, and violent speech is often removed. there are exceptions, of course (that kaepernick tweet still stands, for instance, despite the non-specific violence), but for the most part actively (direct, specific, imminent) violent speech is removed. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:48:05] - a: I mean, why would any site ever allow a comments section or message board, then, if any random person could start posting violent threats and get them effectively thrown off the internet? -Paul
[2021-01-13 15:47:24] - a: "parler was banned because they couldn't (or otherwise weren't) addressing the issues" I know, and I saw, but that's pretty nebulous, right? Twitter and Facebook obviously also haven't been able to prevent extremist from using their platforms either. And holding platforms responsible for the content that others post on them seems like a dangerous change. -paul
[2021-01-13 15:20:21] - "Every panic button in my office had been torn out — the whole unit" possibly indicates some calculated murder or at least setting up some hostage situations? link if this is not impeachable: nothing is. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:06:04] - s/monday/yesterday/. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:05:35] - paul: "how many past violent acts have been planned out over Twitter and Facebook?" we talked about that monday: parler wasn't banned because there were communications about violence. according to private communications made by amazon, parler was banned because they couldn't (or otherwise weren't) addressing the issues. ~a
[2021-01-13 15:02:49] - a: I can't read Wapo anyway. Paywall blocked.
-Paul[2021-01-13 15:02:29] - a: Sure, maybe he is. I have no idea. But how many past violent acts have been planned out over Twitter and Facebook? Clearly just because bad people can use communications tools for bad things isn't a reason for tossing the whole baby out with the bath water. So why is that happening this time? -Paul
[2021-01-13 15:00:24] - hmmm, i guess my link doesn't talk about the arrests. still looking . . . ~a
[2021-01-13 14:57:16] - what he says is in direct conflict with what reports and what amazon is saying. top google result i don't believe greenwald. greenwald is technically not technically right. ~a
[2021-01-13 14:54:13] - a: Sorry, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't making that claim, I was trying to quote Greenwald and emphasizing areas where he could be technically right. -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:53:18] - a: That was a quote from Pierce's link. Here is the specific tweet: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1348619731734028293 -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:52:36] - a: Also, are we talking about the protest or the invasion? I assume the plan from the very beginning from everybody there wasn't to charge the Capitol (I could be wrong, this is just an assumption). Maybe the protest was planned on Parler? -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:51:30] - "nobody ARRESTED has been an ACTIVE Parler user" i believe you but i'd like to read more. can you link this? thanks. ~a
[2021-01-13 14:51:03] - a: I have no idea if he is wrong, and there's obvious grey areas where he could be technically right (nobody ARRESTED has been an ACTIVE Parler user). Maybe they haven't been arrested yet or maybe their account was already suspended. -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:33:49] - paul: isn't he wrong though? i heard reporting that parler was used to plan everything. was that reporting incorrect? did parler do anything to stop the planning? amazon is claiming (in private) that parler did nothing to stop the planning, right? "it is hard to see this crackdown as something imminently necessary" it doesn't need to be imminently necessary: it only needs to be against the terms of service. ~a
[2021-01-13 14:33:18] - "binders full of women". Misplaced apostrophe. -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:32:54] - Pierce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binders_full_of_women And there is a wikipedia article about Romney's "binder's full of women" remark. Lots of stupid things make news sometimes. -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:30:36] - Pierce: instead of just a desire to shut down speech that the majority of tech giant employees and CEOs don't like by people they don't like. -Paul
[2021-01-13 14:29:51] - Pierce: And if Greenwald isn't wrong? Or even if he is and one or two were Parler users but didn't use it to plan anything. Or even if one or two did plan something.... how many purveyors of violence in the past were on Twitter or Facebook? I'm trying not to pass any judgement until I see more evidence (on any side), but as of now it is hard to see this crackdown as something imminently necessary... -Paul
[2021-01-13 03:00:06] - oh wait, I forgot about Nunes! I take back my withdrawal of the "probable kompromat" thing. - pierce
[2021-01-13 02:27:33] - ugh, mcclintock soaking trump's speech in novocaine, that he didn't say to march on the capitol. the banners at Trump's rally read "Save America March" and he told them "we" would march down to "stop the steal". - pierce
[2021-01-13 01:25:04] - what the hell is happening? "Just watched about 10 Republicans walk around the magnetometer." - pierce
[2021-01-13 01:20:45] - if that's a stunt it's obvious she has no contrition about putting her colleagues at risk during the attack on the 6th. if it's not a stunt, then... - pierce
[2021-01-13 01:15:38] - awesome, boebert set off the metal detectors, refused to let her bag be searched, was let in but it's not obvious that anyone checked her bag. - pierce
[2021-01-13 01:09:43] - *and that this
[2021-01-13 01:08:50] - dang, greenwald is saying zero of the arrests for the capitol invasion were active parler users and that all the this is all a pretext to shut down competitors. if he's right, he is exposing an enormous conspiracy that's easily provable by very few leaks. more likely, fuck this guy. - pierce
[2021-01-12 23:36:28] - god help biden if he ever accidentally sticks his pinky out while drinking from a coffee mug. - pierce
[2021-01-12 23:24:56] - haha there's an entire wikipedia page about the Obama tan suit controversy - pierce
[2021-01-12 23:22:22] - god, do you all remember when any of those stories would've been like a week or two of news? that was all fucking today. - pierce
[2021-01-12 23:20:42] - leaks from McConnell's folks supporting impeachment, prominent republican congresspeople coming out publicly in favor, surprising resignations (Minneapolis police union chief who seemed immune to public shame). statement from the joint chiefs condemning the riot, weird trump speech saying the 25th is no threat to him overlapping an FBI briefing about ongoing charges. something seems to be happening. - pierce
[2021-01-12 21:30:21] - i had always wondered if he was being chased on purpose. i wasn't sure why, but that makes sense. ~a
[2021-01-12 21:29:34] - that's also about the same time of that video of the capitol police officer getting chased up the stairs, apparently shoving the lead rioter and potentially baiting him to go further up instead of into the senate chambers which were minutes away from being sealed. - pierce
[2021-01-12 21:26:57] - that
[2021-01-12 21:22:00] - daniel: for reference, the crowd had become uncontrollable and barriers were breached at 13:30. pipe bombs were found. 13:49 is when capitol police chief asked the dc national guard for immediate assistance. windows were broken at 14:15. ~14:18 is when pence was removed due to security concerns. it could be that boebert didn't know these things, but i'm just giving context. ~a
[2021-01-12 21:18:12] - daniel: I'll be fair that the term "livetweeting" does suggest more than two tweets. but "The Speaker has been removed from the chambers." is so specific and immediate that it's suspect from someone who has expressed such visceral hate for her opponents. - pierce
[2021-01-12 21:09:54] - daniel: effectively (my uncharitable translation) 14:17: pelosi is in the chambers, if you want to find pelosi she's here. 14:18: ok, now pelosi is no longer in the chambers, if you want to find pelosi, look for her elsewhere. again, i see it both ways, it seems like it possibly was an honest mistake. ~a
[2021-01-12 21:07:23] - I kind of believe she might have tweeted an actual location if she knew it. But she didn't so the characterization still bugs me in some small way. -Daniel
[2021-01-12 21:06:37] - a: I agree that its breaking opsec but also I would have to check the time on it. Like originally did they realize they needed to be having opsec? I get that she doesn't get a lot of benefit of a doubt here but it doesn't seem that different than the news that Pence was whisked away either. -Daniel
[2021-01-12 21:05:05] - daniel: that's it. that her location wasn't in the chamber is enough: its breaking opsec during an enemy attacking. you'd get a court marshall if you did that in the military while an enemy was attacking. but i get your complaint, the details are vague. vague, but enough info for an attacking army. ~a
prev <-> next