prev <-> next
[2021-04-15 18:55:41] - names must be 8-63 ascii characters and each must have an encoding in the range of 32 to 126 (decimal), inclusive. and if you're a bad pet owner then you don't get to win the contest - aaron
[2021-04-15 18:50:01] - are there any rules about the names? do they have to be pronounceable? if you point at one, do i need to be able to recall its name? like, just because i'm a bad pet owner doesn't mean its not a pet, right? ~a
[2021-04-15 18:48:54] - a: if they don't have names they aren't pets - aaron
[2021-04-15 18:46:12] - daniel: do pets have to be animals? can i have a pet plant? or a pet bacterium? i looked up the definition, and it looks like (with aaron's help) i've totally broken your metric. i declare my gut-bacteria as pets. ~a
[2021-04-15 18:43:38] - aaron: You definitely win now. -Daniel
[2021-04-15 18:38:49] - oh man i didn't think of ant farm. ~a
[2021-04-15 18:32:01] - daniel: i had an ant farm! ...but i biked a lot. and all my ants died - aaron
[2021-04-15 18:11:58] - paul: 1st place in the stock market competition changed! still not me though
in old competitions we had a historical data, like per quarter. that seems to have gone away? ~a[2021-04-15 16:01:30] - I'm not always as cynical as miguel but in this case I'm pretty much in agreement. The only context I would add being that their power grab is in response to another power grab? But I don't know if that really matters any. -Daniel
[2021-04-15 15:56:39] - they talk about "balance" because they can't straight up stay, "tilt the court to our favor". It's the dumb dance they do when they are making naked partisan power grabs. Republicans did this dance already with the RGB/ACB thing. - mig
[2021-04-15 15:42:58] - Daniel: Got it, makes sense now. Thanks. -Paul
[2021-04-15 15:03:24] - I'm saying a politician taking about balance while talking about adding justices to the supreme court doesn't make sense to me either. Talking about adding justices in order to swing the balance makes sense. I'm not advocating for anything as a goal though. -Daniel
[2021-04-15 14:59:24] - Daniel: I'm not sure I understand. You are saying "balance" shouldn't be a goal, but control should be? Or that is clearly what they are trying? -Paul
[2021-04-15 14:51:36] - any talk of balance doesn't really make sense to me either. I think they want to keep the total number of justices odd. But for 4 vs 2 I'm with Miguel that the point would be control. -Daniel
[2021-04-15 14:40:38] - mig: Considering all the talk of "balance", though, I have to imagine there is SOME rationale that can be given. -Paul
[2021-04-15 14:39:45] - I remember stating previously that they wouldn't bother taking this sort of step unless it actually accomplishes the goal of tilting the court's balance. - mig
[2021-04-15 14:37:01] - paul: it's pretty obvious. adding 4 will tilt the balance towards "their side". - mig
[2021-04-15 14:15:21] - Likewise, there is talk of balance. Even if we assume the traditional idea that there are "conservative" justices and "liberal" ones, wouldn't that just mean adding 3 seats? I don't see how 4 makes any sense unless the idea is to just unbalance it in favor of the party currently occupying the white house and controlling congress. -Paul
[2021-04-15 14:13:23] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132 Can somebody walk me through why the number of expanded seats for SCOTUS would be 4? If the Dems are trying to "fix" the whole Merrick Garland situation, shouldn't it just be two added seats? -Paul
[2021-04-14 21:28:11] - daniel: i reject your new changes. i think its safe to say that you guys are both at about -500 and i'm sitting pretty at about -25,000. though i have a hard time estimating my mileage when i was like 12. ~a
[2021-04-14 20:51:43] - a: Crap. Miles biked in the last week? Is this how politics work where you haggle over metrics to make them tailored to your desired outcomes? -Daniel
[2021-04-14 20:39:18] - if you have a metric that is greater than zero, you either have waaay too many pets or you didn't have a bike when you were a kid. ~a
[2021-04-14 20:37:43] - daniel: i'm like 99% sure we'll all be in the negatives. i'd hate to meet the poor soul who wasn't in the negatives. ~a
[2021-04-14 20:36:26] -
~a[2021-04-14 20:28:03] - What if the metric is number of pets plus number of children plus companies started minus number of solar panels minus number of miles biked. I think that is a good metric. -Daniel
[2021-04-14 20:07:10] - a: If he responds today then we can count him, otherwise, no. -Paul
[2021-04-14 19:41:51] - xpovos doesn't count? ~a
[2021-04-14 19:41:28] - Daniel: Yes. I was 90% joking. We all know the best measure of success is number of kids, where I am comfortably ahead among people who frequent the message board.
-Paul[2021-04-14 19:06:08] - daniel: yes. "market cap" is the "worth" value that most people use. and market cap is 100% based on the price. (basically, price times shares, but my eyes glaze over when people start talking about the difference between "float" and "shares outstanding") ~a
[2021-04-14 19:04:58] - a: Is the company worth number based on share price? -Daniel
[2021-04-14 19:04:07] - Disappointment seems harsh. Capitalism isn't the only lens to define success. I know you probably don't mean it literally but just in case! -Daniel
[2021-04-14 19:02:28] - a: Yeah, we're all officially disappointments now. We're like in our late 30s / early 40s and have no multi-billion dollar companies to our names.... unless somebody is really good at hiding it. -Paul
[2021-04-14 18:59:09] - both founders are younger than us (33 and 38). yikes. their company is worth 90b, which puts them in the top 100 larges us companies and very close to the largest 100 companies worldwide. ~a
[2021-04-14 18:58:24] - paul: "crypto firm coinbase valued at more than oil giant bp"
i'd call that a pop. ~a[2021-04-14 18:47:56] - a: Not quite as big a pop as snowflake... -Paul
[2021-04-14 18:38:32] - paul: coinbase started trading ~1 hour ago. looks like ~350 is the price right now. ~a
[2021-04-14 18:24:32] - I used to talk about nuclear a lot in terms of how renewables were impractical and nuclear is a lot safer and cleaner than many environmentalists think and we should be using it more. I'm not sure that is as relevant anymore since renewables have gotten cheaper. -Paul
[2021-04-14 15:37:40] - daniel: if i lived near one of these really old reactors (wtf, many of these reactors are 45 years old), i'd be pushing really hard for an IMBY (a reverse nimby?); for them to start building a new reactor on the grounds of the old reactor. ~a
[2021-04-14 15:33:22] - daniel: nuclear power has a nimby problem? what could you possibly be talking about?
if you sort by "construction start" or "commercial operation" in the us, it looks reeeeal bad. watts bar, the "new cool" reactor: construction started in the fucking 70s. this is bad because old reactors, that should get shut down, are probably being stretched way too long. ~a[2021-04-14 15:27:25] - On the barely mentioned topic of nuclear energy - are you guys familiar with kurzgesagt youtube channel? I think the case for nuclear is growing but has such a NIMBY problem that I'm not sure if any new plants actually get built in US. -Daniel
[2021-04-14 15:06:11] - paul: or, iow again, ignoring politics can lead to 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions. or 28% of microplastics in the ocean coming (very indirectly) from companies that sell car-tires. ~a
[2021-04-14 15:02:39] - paul: iow, focusing on long term profits may often require a foray into politics. ~a
[2021-04-14 15:01:27] - paul: BUT if you are dominion, and you're trying to decide whether to switch from coal to nuclear or something to something, then i think staying away from "politics" (and defining "politics" how you see fit) is the wrong approach. ~a
[2021-04-14 15:00:55] - paul: "I guess it depends on what kind of activism you are talking about" yes it does, i agree. saying that you're going to let the politicians figure out "climate change", and you're going to focus on making it easier for average joe's to figure out how to transact in bitcoin, totally fine, that makes sense. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:58:40] - a: "bigger pictures and long term often require activism of some kind, right?" I don't think so? I guess it depends on what kind of activism you are talking about. I don't think being long term focused while staying out of politics is mutually exclusive. They seem independent to me. -Paul
[2021-04-14 14:52:29] - paul: i'm a moderate on that. not being a corporate activist is fine, imo. but (hypothetically) if you said that you're going to be laser focused towards short term profits only, and not look at the bigger picture that's dumb in my opinion. bigger pictures and long term often require activism of some kind, right? ~a
[2021-04-14 14:47:25] - a: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/business/dealbook/coinbase-social-activism.html You aren't bothered by their anti-corporate-social-activism stand? -Paul
[2021-04-14 14:47:05] - a: Okay, you answered it. I wasn't sure if Coinbase (possibly under a different name) existed prior to it being focused on bitcoin trading. It makes sense they would make the number of shares based on bitcoin then. -Paul
[2021-04-14 14:35:57] - paul: we're pfizer-biontech bros! my wife is of the moderna house. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:34:00] - paul: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" was embedded in the bytes of the first ever coinbase. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:32:57] - paul: i assume you know this, but "coinbase" is a technical bitcoin term. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:31:09] - paul: i don't understand the question. coinbase was founded as a company to facilitate the trade of bitcoin. i was a serious customer of theirs in 2014. since then, things may have changed. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:30:28] - a: I am also partially vaccinated, but I got the pfizer, so I am safe.
-Paul[2021-04-14 14:29:50] - a: Has coinbase been pretty crypto focused from inception? -Paul
[2021-04-14 14:28:05] - paul: yes, $250 is the price that nasdaq picked. earnings are $1.73 (per share per year), so $250 is a very generous price. its not an ipo, so the price could (start trading or) move way above or way below that amount. that's why i picked one limit order above $250 and one below. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:25:29] - paul: i know you were kidding. but i am (partially) vaccinated. ~a
[2021-04-14 14:24:27] - a: I thought I heard they were pricing the IPO at $250 a share, although I am not following it much at all. -Paul
[2021-04-14 14:23:39] - a: Anti-vaxxer.
-Paul[2021-04-14 14:01:40] - paul: lol, they created 21M coinbase shares
someone has a sense of humor. ~a[2021-04-14 13:52:35] - paul: coinbase public listing is today. lmk if you see any info (in general, i've had a hard time finding out anything about coinbase today) . . . as of now i haven't seen "asks" and "bids" published anywhere. even nasdaq's own site is showing nothing useful. i have two limit orders open: one at 180 (one share) and one at 310 (one share). ~a
[2021-04-14 13:43:32] - paul: "but wouldn't the rate of increase have to be pretty crazy high to match the risks from COVID?" yes. "How is this not also trying and failing to predict the future?" good point. but you do have to decide one way or the other. and vaccines have gone horribly bad before, so i understand the "hesitancy"? ~a
[2021-04-14 13:21:00] - a: Okay, sure, I can understand that maybe the number could be increasing at a rate faster than people are getting the shot, but wouldn't the rate of increase have to be pretty crazy high to match the risks from COVID? How is this not also trying and failing to predict the future? -Paul
[2021-04-13 18:11:32] - i think its more than that? i haven't read your article, but i'll hazard a guess that a pause includes studying the data to see if that number (6) increases, or stays steady? i think someone saying "The risks of blood clots are much lower than the risks of COVID-19 illness" is trying, and failing, to predict the future. ~a
[2021-04-13 17:54:26] - paul: I can't say for sure, but maybe it's being driven by the fear of vaccine skepticism? Like, if they don't pause, then it gives the skeptics an opening to claim some high ground? - mig
[2021-04-13 17:47:59] - It's hard for me to believe any kind of cost benefit analysis was used here, and it's also hard to believe there is any statistically significant sample size here to show a problem, but I am open to being proven wrong. -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:46:58] - https://reason.com/2021/04/13/the-fdas-decision-to-pause-jj-vaccination-will-kill-people/ Speaking (tangentially) of science, can somebody explain to me the science behind the pause in the J&J vaccine rollout after six people (out of 6.8 million who got the vaccine) got blood clots? -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:41:57] - Daniel: And I think there's a time and place for it, right? Like if you're a comedian, then sure. But if you're a supposed respected thought leader in a position to potentially change minds.... I wish those people would do a little less snarky commentary and a little more genuine attempts to change minds. -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:40:20] - Daniel: I agree, and I want to be clear that I am certainly not "holier-than-thou" about it. I am just as guilty as anybody and sometimes I just want to rip off a snide remark at somebody I disagree with that has no intention of changing minds and is just about scoring "points". I get it! It's super satisfying. -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:38:26] - Its hard to extend that same patience to an adult even if it is the right thing. -Daniel
[2021-04-13 17:38:09] - Paul / a: I think there is an element of all these things where its hard to communicate something to someone in a patient and understanding way especially when inside you think they might be bonkers. On a much smaller scale its hard for me to always have patience with my kids who I love and understand are small people who don't know everything and I'm supposed to be helping them. -Daniel
[2021-04-13 17:28:06] - a: So I think trying to present studies and evidence is a lot better than saying: "You are anti-science and tough cookies because you're wrong no matter what you think" -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:27:01] - a: Which is fine, if that's the goal, but I feel like he should be trying for more. Do you think most anti-vaxxers think they are anti-science? I'll bet they aren't. I think most believe they know more about the science of vaccines than others. Most anti-vaxxers I see have bunches of stats about rises in required vaccines and other stuff. -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:25:36] - a: "what are we SUPPOSED to say to these people?!" Oddly enough, I almost started talking about this regarding why I am not a huge NGT fan. I feel like his stuff is mostly virtue-signaling and preaching to the choir and smugly condescending to those who disagree with no intention to change minds. -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:11:22] - because whatever we are saying, isn't working. ~a
[2021-04-13 17:11:00] - "vaccines are safe no matter what you believe" i don't think that's a sideways way of saying this, no. "masks prevent COVID no matter what you believe" i don't think that's a sideways way of saying this, no. but people are dumb and think that vaccines cause autism, or masks cause a dangerous decrease in blood oxygenation levels. let me put this back on you: what are we SUPPOSED to say to these people?! ~a
[2021-04-13 17:09:11] - paul: "what would be the point of him making that statement a few days ago?" a lot of people don't realize that science is hiding behind our daily lives. without the human study of science, most of us would be dead, and the ones that aren't dead would be living VERY different lives. ~a
[2021-04-13 17:08:24] - a: To me, it probably was a sideways ways of saying: "vaccines are safe no matter what you believe" or "masks prevent COVID no matter what you believe" or something along those lines. Right? "The good thing about Science is that itโs true, whether or not you believe in it." Do people really not believe that science is the search for truth? -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:08:16] - paul: "'Truth' has an element of finality to it to me". oh wow, ok. well, not to me. the dictionary definition of "truth" doesn't define any sort of finality. what's more, it defines truth as a "state". as a programmer, my boolean variables change state thousands of times per second
~a[2021-04-13 17:06:54] - a: When I hear somebody say "science is true", that to me means, "what science is telling us right now is the truth and cannot be false". I mean, from a practical standpoint, what would be the point of him making that statement a few days ago? -Paul
[2021-04-13 17:05:20] - a: What other equalities? Maybe it's a Catholic thing? I'm not even joking. "Truth" has an element of finality to it to me. Like, something is the settled truth and cannot be questioned because it is the truth. Ie, the word of God or the Bible or whatever. I don't hear "science is true" and think "well, some of it might be wrong and we should test it to see". -Paul
[2021-04-13 16:37:18] - i can read "science is true" as "science is the search for truth". those seem much closer to me than these other equalities i'm seeing from you guys. ~a
[2021-04-13 16:19:50] - a: I know this isn't the first time he has made tweets which make better sound-bytes than anything else (I am not a huge NDT fan), but ironically I am having trouble finding them because all the search results are overwhelmed by a "bad" tweet about mass shooting that I actually agree with. -Paul
[2021-04-13 16:17:08] - a: Well, the "don't question science" thing was from the earlier discussion, but it's the same vein. I'm a little leery about describing science as truth itself. It is the search for truth, and I think labeling anything as inherently the truth is dangerous because it cuts off questioning of that very thing. -Paul
[2021-04-13 15:53:05] - mig: i can? ~a
[2021-04-13 15:52:43] - a: you can read "science = true" as "don't question science". It's probably not what NDT meant, but it's certainly what someone can take away from the tweet. - mig
[2021-04-13 15:14:55] - paul: i'm a big ngt fan. it does suck that we can't have anything nice. ~a
[2021-04-13 15:08:11] - i think ngt would be fine holding his own on "what science is and isn't" discussion if he felt that a meme-seo-genius deserved the press? ~a
[2021-04-13 15:07:06] - paul: nothing about what steak-ums is discussing is well thought out. sure, ok . . . they have some puns. ~a
[2021-04-13 15:05:58] - imo "don't question science" is dripping in the same bullshit strawman that steakums is peddling. ~a
[2021-04-13 15:05:23] - paul: "science is true" != "don't question science". neil *** never *** said don't question science. ~a
[2021-04-13 15:04:41] - Daniel: So this whole nit-picky wordplay is right in my pet-peeve wheelhouse of: Of course we should be questioning science. That's the whole point of science! Questioning things and testing them. -Paul
[2021-04-13 15:03:47] - Daniel: Also, I don't know if you were on the message board back then, but I am pretty sure I had a very similar dispute about science with.... Pierce? Somebody else? About how saying stuff like "science is true" and "don't question science" is like the opposite of what science actually is or should be. -Paul
[2021-04-13 15:02:38] - While also tweeting things like: "a thread about how all brands that make social/political comments/stances do so to meat a self-interested bottom line, including us". Also, the puns! "misteaks" -Paul
[2021-04-13 15:01:24] - Daniel: Probably not? I don't actually know if he has replied to Steak-Umms. Maybe I'm just weird for thinking it's cool how a random steak (is it even real steak?) company can get so much publicity over making real and legit and well-thought out criticisms of a scientist over what science is. -Paul
[2021-04-13 14:55:38] - yeah, i'm very "meh" about the whole thing too. maybe i'm missing the "feud" (i am also lost on how to see the real back and forth). with retorts like "who cares", i'm a bit lost on why *i* should care? ~a
[2021-04-13 14:40:27] - maybe meh is a better description than bleh. -Daniel
[2021-04-13 14:37:24] - Calling NDT for saying science is true because science evolves seems bleh to me. Like I get the point I guess? But mostly it just seems like most things where the statement "Science is true" is not 100% given specifics but is true enough for casual / general / twitter use? -Daniel
[2021-04-13 14:31:59] - Is there a way to see the twitter back and forth without tons of other twitter replies in the way? -Daniel
[2021-04-13 14:21:09] - https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1381799324179427330 Anybody following the Steak-Umms twitter feud with Neil deGrass Tyson? Whoever manages their twitter account is an SEO genius. -Paul
[2021-04-13 14:19:40] - a: Let's just say I could buy a nice sushi dinner with a nice bottle of wine based on my paper profits today. -Paul
[2021-04-13 14:03:01] - yes 4% is a lot. ~a
[2021-04-13 13:57:29] - a: I guess it depends on what you consider a lot? Dollar amount or percentage or something else? -Paul
[2021-04-13 13:57:08] - a: It was around 4% of my portfolio before so.... yes? -Paul
[2021-04-13 13:55:53] - do you have a lot of NVCR irl? ~a
[2021-04-13 13:44:45] - paul: +56% in one day will do that
~a[2021-04-13 13:44:03] - paul: what's more, cyclists aren't killed in dc very often. 100% of them are news to me. this guy is tracking them, and it seems like only a few per year? ~a
[2021-04-13 13:41:51] - a: Big day for NVCR, bringing me within spitting distance of you in fantasy investing! -Paul
[2021-04-13 13:40:05] - paul: the "trillions of dollars" are barely noise compared to what happened over a year ago in april 2020. ~a
[2021-04-13 13:38:20] - paul: "cyclist gets hit and killed by car" isn't the news. the news is that he authored an article about how we shouldn't be subsidizing a "negative externality" one month before one of those negative exernalities killed him. the news is that he tweeted about the dangers of our roads hours before the dangers of those roads drove head-first into a vulnerable road user. ~a
[2021-04-13 13:38:17] - How crazy is it that we haven't really discussed at all the trillions of dollars that has been spent over the past month or so? Every time I consider trimming some of my btc holdings I think about the incredible debt being run up by the federal government and the increase in monetary supply and wonder if I should buy more... -Paul
[2021-04-13 13:35:53] - anon: yep
on the other hand, even after this incident (and many similar incidents), i still keep reminding myself that its safer to be on a bike on dc roads than in a car on dc roads. we have a long way to go towards vision zero, sure. just because its safer to be on the bike doesn't mean its fair for the cyclists to carry the burden of death for all of the drivers on the road, sure. but in the mean time, i'll be on a bike. ~a[2021-04-13 13:35:42] - a: I hear about the Pagels news a few days ago and almost posted it here. Apparently he was a rising star in libertarian circles. I didn't post because... I dunno, wasn't sure if "cyclist gets hit and killed by car" was necessarily news minus any knowledge of who the person was. -Paul
[2021-04-13 13:10:44] - a: Ah, same situation. Unsurprising.
[2021-04-13 13:10:00] - a: related, and a topic we talk about regularly: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bicyclist-killed-in-crash-tweeted-just-hours-earlier-about-the-danger-of-riding-in-dc/ar-BB1fA1aX?ocid=uxbndlbing
[2021-04-13 12:51:45] - the part with "making streets more hostile to ... pedestrians. each additional car exacerbates this issue" . . . is something i think about a lot. also between a quarter and a third of "all microplastics in the ocean originate from tires" blew my mind. the, "further entrenching automobile-oriented lifestyles" argument does seem like we're setting ourselves up for a problem that can only get worse. ~a
[2021-04-12 22:00:45] - try not to focus on the proposed increase in "tax", but instead focus on the decrease in "subsidies"? (in other places, the author eves says that he really just wants to decrease subsidies). really interesting article written about electric vehicles. dude who wrote it died in dc on friday. he was hit and killed by a person in a car. ~a
[2021-04-12 16:36:12] - paul: yeah, ok. i definitely remember bringing out two scvs: one for barracks and one for supply depot. but that could have been before sc2 came out, i don't remember. ~a
[2021-04-12 16:16:06] - a: I think it had always been necessary for SC2? Or at least it has been for awhile. -Paul
[2021-04-12 16:02:55] - oh hey btw, when did terran start requiring a supply depot before barracks? that definitely wasn't a thing in sc1. ~a
[2021-04-12 15:41:08] - yeah i guess vibe isn't a computer. he has ta talk about what he's doing, and teach people how to do it, all while playing a *real* game: but ALSO he replies to stuff, where people are chatting with him live. i think that would all be very hard, i can't do one of those things at once. ~a
[2021-04-12 15:32:32] - ever* again.
[2021-04-12 15:32:23] - a: Managing supply cap is almost certainly more important. He doesn't advocate for that level of attention to mineral lines every again. Yeah its just the start of the game where its like you aren't doing anything else right now so might as well optimize. I generally just think about what I'm going to do any try to focus on not screwing that up though
-Daniel[2021-04-12 15:30:24] - Paul: Probably just forgetting? He was doing it in the diamond games I was watching recently. -Daniel
[2021-04-12 15:27:52] - i definitely don't do either of those things. i've heard about people doing this long ago but i've never done it. i always figure i'm making bigger mistakes (like being supply capped) that matter way more? i guess the "so little else going on" argument is fair one. ~a
[2021-04-12 15:25:10] - Daniel: I was actually talking about the thing even before that, literally in the first second of the game, where you grab 1-3 workers on one end of the starting "L" shape and send them to one of the mineral patches at the end to speed up that initial worker spread. I've definitely seen a few platinum games where he hasn't done that and I wonder why. -Paul
[2021-04-12 15:19:24] - But its a small thing that he talks about mostly because there is so little else going on in the first 15-30 seconds of the game. Like you gain maybe like 50 minerals or something at max out of it. Maybe less I don't remember. -Daniel
[2021-04-12 15:18:39] - a: As part of that at the very very start of the game all your workers I think are rallied to the same patch then spread themselves out over time. Vibe says you can grab some and split them off to a different patch to accelerate the process. -Daniel
[2021-04-12 15:18:00] - mmmm wow ok. i definitely don't do this. ~a
[2021-04-12 15:17:32] - a: At the very start of the game where there isn't much going on in the first ~30 seconds or so he talks about making sure you have two workers per patch in your main mineral line so they are working optimally. I often don't do this but occasionally try. -Daniel
[2021-04-12 15:11:35] - can you guy's explain this further? i've watched a few vibe videos (mostly gold and platinum), but am not sure which thing you are talking about. are you talking about confirming each expansion has the same number of workers? or something else? ~a
[2021-04-12 15:08:36] - Paul: Either he is focusing on other stuff or doing it faster now and not explaining it as much. I've seen him send workers to different patches still in the higher videos. -Daniel
[2021-04-12 15:06:42] - Daniel: In B2GM 2021 in some of the gold videos, Vibe mentions splitting your workers at the very beginning but now that I am watching plat videos he doesn't seem to do it anymore. Any idea why? -Paul
[2021-04-09 17:20:36] - I noticed that too. Wednesday was the first time I used my car in a month and I was stuck in a damn traffic jam on 495. ~a
[2021-04-09 16:16:27] - Anecdotally, there seem to be many more cars on the road the past few weeks than before. -Paul
[2021-04-09 16:15:31] - a: Maybe, or maybe there's been a really drastic reduction in social distancing from everybody (even the non-vaccinated) recently because of some mistaken idea of herd immunity? -Paul
[2021-04-09 14:39:38] - paul: "ignore how much people's behavior might change independent of those" that's fine, that's probably it. but 1/3rd of the population having (partial) vaccination wasn't giving any credit to "lockdowns" or "mandates". ~a
[2021-04-09 14:37:12] - paul: i figured that was a typo.
still, i'm not sure its not showing up in the data. they're #26 and #28 in cases/deaths (per cap) in a country that isn't doing well at all . . . which isn't exactly great. still its relative i guess? they did much better than new york etc? ~a[2021-04-09 14:33:29] - * "it's NOT showing up in the data" -Paul
[2021-04-09 14:20:46] - a: I think maybe we give too much credit to official government lockdowns and mandates and ignore how much people's behavior might change independent of those? Like maybe people are locking down more than they technically have to sometimes and ignoring lockdowns at other times? -Paul
[2021-04-09 14:19:45] - a: "whyyyyy is the case-graph + death-graph holding steady?!" No idea. There's a lot about how COVID that I still don't get. I'll go back to the whole Florida thing where science would seem to indicate that their more lax lockdowns and higher aged population should be having worse results but... it's now showing up in the data? -Paul
[2021-04-09 14:18:06] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/amazon-union-vote-count-in-alabama-live-updates-of-results.html I thought the debate over the installation of the mailbox was interesting. Where is the line between vote suppression and vote influence? -Paul
[2021-04-09 13:42:01] - 1/3 americans have at least one dose of the vaccination. with 95% efficacy, whyyyyy is the case-graph + death-graph holding steady?! its supposed to be nice out, and 1/3 americans have been vaccinated, the cases+deaths should be dropping, yes? is it because its still cold in some parts of the US? is it because people who haven't gotten the vaccine, young and middle-aged people, are the same people that are likely to be active/spreading? ~a
[2021-04-08 16:56:39] - i'll totally brush off my chess algorithm, if you wanna battle. i'll probably need more than 10 microseconds per move though. maybe . . . 100? ~a
[2021-04-08 16:55:36] - i didn't realize draws were super common among high-level play. i believe it, i just don't really follow chess?
but, yeah, draws among computers (who can't make the same kind of "mistakes" we can), seem like they'd be super common. ~a[2021-04-08 16:53:43] - a: i'm surprised! i would assume with the prevalence of draws at high-level play that any game where computers were given human amounts of chess time would just be a draw - aaron
[2021-04-08 15:14:19] - paul: he didn't differentiate. he said that the law got support because of the lies from giuliani. so i guess its more of the FIRST thing, but he didn't make it a for sure thing. ~a
[2021-04-08 15:12:52] - aaron: World Computer Speed Chess Championship doesn't seem to follow your idea on timing. they were given normal "human" increments of time. ~a
[2021-04-08 15:12:43] - a: I saw the headline, but didn't read the article so I don't know the specifics at all. Was he saying they made the law to fight the fraud that didn't exist? Or was he saying the law was created to make those false claims harder to make? -Paul
[2021-04-08 13:06:42] - i wonder if anybody's ever thought of having a computer blitz chess tournament. 1 millisecond per player; 10 microsecond increment - aaron
[2021-04-08 05:15:17] - mig/paul: "georgia's lieutenant governor says giuliani's false fraud claims helped lead to [georgia] voting law". ooof. whether its true or not (i can't imagine it is), why the heck would the lieutenant governor say this? i watched the video where he says this, he says it twice, without much prompting. i guess he doesn't like trump or the new law, but why would he admit that his administration just signed in a big law based on lies? ~a
[2021-04-07 18:29:08] - mig: I can make some justifications for him (he was just trying to get into Trump's inner circle so he could push his favorite positions), and he IS still good on a few issues, but yeah, he's been truly awful on a lot of issues recently too. -Paul
[2021-04-07 18:28:03] - a: Or you have a million things to try to nail Trump with in terms of being unfit for office and instead it's some conspiracy theory about him being a Russian puppet. *Sigh* -Paul
[2021-04-07 18:27:00] - a: And with George Floyd I was so excited to get some spotlight on reigning in police misconduct (again) and instead the enduring takeaway from it seemed to be "Black Lives Matter". -Paul
[2021-04-07 18:25:42] - a: "why would biden's team focus on the 5:00 thing?" I don't know. I feel like this is a consistent frustration I have with Democrats. Even when I agree with them, they seem to get hung up on the "wrong" things. Like why was Michael Brown the big rallying cry for police misconduct (when it sounds like it was probably a justified shooting) vs Tamir Rice (which was a complete travesty). -Paul
[2021-04-07 16:26:54] - a: I wonder that about rand myself. I have really, really soured on him the last 4 years. - mig
[2021-04-07 16:12:34] - paul: why would biden's team focus on the 5:00 thing? the law does so much more. we mentioned the weird criminalization of food and water. but it also restricts access to voting drop-boxes (in "large", "urban" counties). it "shortens the duration of the absentee voting period" and changes the id requirements for absentee voters. there is so much "bad" with this bill, how could biden's team fuck this up so bad? ~a
[2021-04-07 15:08:15] - a: I think we're probably pretty much on the same page. I think the extra clause is probably unnecessary (and thus, bad) and is more likely to be used for nefarious purposes than to actually prevent election meddling. At the same time, I don't think this was a sort of Jim Eagle type move to try to secretly dehydrate all blacks so they don't vote (or whatever). -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:38:18] - paul: hmmmm. i'm not sure i like my original statement. i'm not sure i want to defend either side though. i do wish we were able to bring water to people waiting in line. and it doesn't seem outlandish that someone would use this to make voting harder. but i dunno, nm. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:38:04] - a: "their true colors were revealed" I think it depends on what behavior we are talking about. For example, Rand Paul certainly had some very harsh words for Trump prior to his nomination and that changed. But maybe he has always been far more willing to compromise on some positions than I realized (he's still largely been good on military interventionism and stuff like the Breonna Taylor act). -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:35:24] - a: "i can't imagine this is the "real" reason." What do you think the real reason is? -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:34:49] - a: "is there at least some kernel of truth here?" Probably. If your point is that it's not a random selection, that is almost certainly true. The circle of people I interact with skews heavily towards the left. I agree it's not representative, but it does mirror stuff I see online (Twitter, mostly) and articles I've read (like that college story Daniel posted). -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:34:24] - "behaved real badly recently" its entirely possible that they didn't change their behavior so much as their true colors were revealed. i'm kinda generalizing though. like, so, i wonder if rand paul was ever a good guy: maybe he was just good at faking it? ~a
[2021-04-07 14:32:41] - a: "this has kinda been my feeling about the democratic party since i got interested in politics in ~2000" Mine has gone back and forth. 4+ years ago the Republican party had some politicians I respected somewhat like Amash and Ron/Rand Paul and Mike Lee. Those have either left the party or behaved real badly recently. -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:31:52] - "probably to prevent trying to buy off votes" that seems disingenuous at best. i can't imagine this is the "real" reason. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:31:09] - paul: "It's totally anecdotal" yeah, lets focus on this part. you probably *choose* to interact with your friends on facebook, and choose not to interact with your family on facebook? is there at least some kernel of truth here? ~a
[2021-04-07 14:30:32] - a: I actually do honestly believe the intent with the "no water" change was probably to prevent trying to buy off votes and isn't an actual attempt to cause people to die of dehydration (and I think that matters some), but the end result is almost certainly going to result in some abuse of that in some locales. -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:29:55] - paul: "Democrats have been bad, but at least not quite as bad?" this has kinda been my feeling about the democratic party since i got interested in politics in ~2000. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:29:14] - a: I will say, if we were talking about the voters associated with the parties...? I might say Republican. It's totally anecdotal, but I don't think I've had a "bad" political interaction with any conservatives I know in the past few years, whereas I've had MANY with liberals. -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:28:17] - paul: that's nice, i like that summary especially since it seems to cover the lies on both sides. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:27:56] - a: So, I am basing my answer off of the politicians representing the parties. For the most part, Republican politicians have been so utterly spineless and hypocritical that it's virtually impossible to relate to them at all. Democrats have been bad, but at least not quite as bad? -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:26:02] - a: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/factchecking-claims-about-the-georgia-voting-law/ This had some decent context for some of the claims being tossed around about the Georgia law. I do think it gives more benefit of the doubt to Biden than Republicans ("Biden is talking about hours for early voting, though he doesnโt say that"), but it looks like it is trying to be fair. -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:23:25] - paul: thank you for answering. i am (slightly) surprised by your answer, but your reasoning makes sense. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:22:58] - Daniel: "NBA isn't a law / policy so I'm not sure I understand the comparison" Didn't know we were restricting to law/policy. I'm positive taxes affect races disproportionately because the races aren't "equal" in terms of wealth and income. Asians and whites almost certainly pay more in absolute terms. I also believe most gun laws have outcomes which punish minorities more than whites. -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:22:45] - aaron: agreed again. i do wish we (the administration, and the media) talked more about the specifics of the georgia law. cnn, at least, seems to gloss over the specifics. probably because they think their viewers won't care? i guess its good that the washington post at least is covering some of the specifics. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:20:12] - a: "do you lean more to the democratic party or the republican party?" Assuming I can't say neither? I guess Democratic Party just because the politicians in power seem slightly less insane and hypocritical? Although as I write that I think of people like Cuomo and AOC. I'll still say Democratic Party (if I can't say neither) just because the Republican Party doesn't even bother to say the right thing anymore (let alone do it). -Paul
[2021-04-07 14:13:11] - if someone explains 2 or 3 ways the bill disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters (minorities often work multiple jobs and can't wait in line to vote) and explains ways it could be improved (allow write-in votes or open extra polling stations), that's helpful. if someone just says "it's racist" well ok, maybe you're right but it won't help to say it - aaron
[2021-04-07 14:08:48] - yeah, it feels like it has the same impact as hyperbole that we talked about the other day -- causing anybody who vaguely disagrees with you to vehemently disagree with you. if someone says "star trek is racist" and then lists 10 or 15 reasonable arguments i don't care anymore, i've already ignored them - aaron
[2021-04-07 14:05:06] - aaron: agreed. though, the first person, recently, who made that connection (a law that disempowers non-white voters is actually just racism/jim crow) was biden. probably a bad move on biden's part. i think as it distracts from how problematic the recent georgia bill was. ~a
[2021-04-07 14:03:14] - i think the only time i would label a bill as 'racist' is if it was unambiguously created with racist intent (the intent of disempowering a disfavored/disadvantaged race), even a bill which unambiguously gerrymanders a district to coincidentally disenfranchise minority voters wouldn't strike me as 'racist', it would just strike me as 'you guys are assholes' - aaron
[2021-04-07 13:59:46] - i don't think there's a single word for what they are, and i think that's good because their impact is nuanced. i would say something like "the civil rights act empowers black voters" and "these other bills disempower black voters" and use a few words for it - aaron
[2021-04-07 13:58:25] - i feel like it's a little bit boy-who-cried-wolf to call the "civil rights act" or "voting rights act" racist because they disproportionately affect one race over another race - aaron
[2021-04-07 13:42:25] - I think I get the overall point that there could exist a law that disproportionately affect one race for non racist reasons but I think especially in the realm of voting lots of courts have decided that does count and is a problem. -Daniel
[2021-04-07 13:41:05] - Paul: NBA isn't a law / policy so I'm not sure I understand the comparison. Do gun control laws affect races differently? If so I would wonder if that was because the laws were targeted in some way or if there were underlying factors that led to that. Same with taxes it seems more like it would be an issue with making education / opportunity better would address the issues. -Daniel
[2021-04-07 13:40:43] - paul/mig: image as of today, do you lean more to the democratic party or the republican party? ~a
[2021-04-07 01:49:50] - Daniel: Is the NBA racist? Gun control laws? Taxes? All of those affect different races in different disproportionate ways or have outcomes that are disproportionate to racial breakdowns. -Paul
[2021-04-07 01:48:22] - Daniel: "Isn't that like the definition?" To many, I think it has become that way. I don't think that unequal outcomes means something is racist. Otherwise... what ISN'T racist? I'm not sure if anything in the world has outcomes that are completely even according to race. -Paul
[2021-04-07 01:46:04] - a: "you're back in the green on the stock market challenge" Next stop? Having ARKK surpass the S&P 500 again. -Paul
[2021-04-07 01:45:20] - a: "you'd rather be racist?" I can't tell if my point went completely over your head or if you're screwing with me.
-Paul[2021-04-06 17:44:54] - Paul: Your question seems to imly you don't? Isn't that like the definition? Does there need to be a malign intent for a law/policy for it to qualify? I mean I guess if person A punches person B and person B was Hispanic then that punch disproportionaly affected one race and I'm not sure that is racist. But for policies / laws I think so? -Daniel
[2021-04-06 16:55:56] - paul: you're back in the green on the stock market challenge. congratulations! ~a
[2021-04-06 16:54:26] - ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฅญ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ฅฅ๐ฅ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฅฌ๐ฅฆ๐ง๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅจ๐ฅฏ๐ฅ๐ง๐ง๐๐๐ฅฉ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ฅช๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ง๐ฅ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฅฃ๐ฅ๐ฟ๐ง๐ง๐ฅซ๐ฑ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ค๐ฅ๐ฅฎ๐ก๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฅก๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆช๐ฆ๐ง๐จ๐ฉ๐ช๐๐ฐ๐ง๐ฅง๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ
[2021-04-06 16:47:59] - paul: "I strenuously disagree with this take" so, given two evils: being racist or calling someone racist (we didn't even say that it wasn't deserved!), you'd rather be racist? ~a
[2021-04-06 16:45:36] - Daniel: Depends on why it disproportionately affects one race. Do you think all things that disproportionately affect one race is racist? -Paul
[2021-04-06 16:39:47] - Paul: What word would you use for "disproportionately affect one race"? -Daniel
[2021-04-06 16:34:36] - a: So much from the left these days seems to be of this thinking: (1) Something being racist is the worst thing ever and can't be good. (2) Label everything you don't like as racist. (3) Profit. Is there anything actually racist about these bills? I don't accept that just because a law might disproportionately affect one race means it is inherently racist. -Paul
[2021-04-06 16:31:45] - a: "i do think something is worse that labeling someone as racist: being racist. intentionally or not." I strenuously disagree with this take, specifically because we label so many things as racist these days (and I think we incentivize this behavior when we allow things like Biden and whoever else calling something racist to just shut down debate). -Paul
[2021-04-06 14:50:13] - haha, i saw someone on reddit mention this . . . there are now two planets in the solar system that have more linux devices than windows. ~a
[2021-04-06 14:25:08] - a: GA is making it more difficult to vote in some respects, and easier in others. Its mostly why I'm more mad at Biden. GA law is a mix of good/bad. Biden's actions are indisputably 100% bad. - mig
[2021-04-06 14:14:22] - paul: if georgia making voting more difficult, not to make elections more secure (because they already are), but to try to "win" elections, then their plan has a major downside: you have the tendency to (accidentally) disenfranchise minority voters when you do it. i do think something is worse that labeling someone as racist: being racist. intentionally or not. ~a
[2021-04-06 14:12:57] - "I despite" Ugh.. "I despise" -Paul
[2021-04-06 14:12:42] - I despite the idea of living in my own political bubble, but my own mental well-being has improved immensely by taking a close to zero tolerance position on that kind of behavior when it comes to social media or even political interactions. -Paul
[2021-04-06 14:11:15] - a: And to do that in bad faith just to score political points or shut down an opposing side of the argument is just really ugly and a super asshole thing to do. It shows a complete unwillingness to debate in good faith and instead just a desire to destroy anybody who disagrees with you. -Paul
[2021-04-06 14:09:43] - a: I don't really have any thoughts on if the law is more ethically repulsive than Biden's response or not, but I will say that, speaking as somebody often on the receiving end of hyperbolic accusations... it's SUPER frustrating and annoying and I think repulsive is a fine word to use. Labeling somebody a racist is one of the most damning things to do in our current moment (look at all the jobs lost and lives ruined). -Paul
[2021-04-06 13:40:14] - mig: "whether the reaction is rational or not", nope, we agree there too. the president's reaction was wrong in (at least) one place. where we disagree is when you ratchet up the rhetoric: "ethically repulsive" / president's actions are way worse than the law / etc. ~a
[2021-04-06 13:27:49] - a: and oddly enough, I was a bit hyperbolic then by calling it "bonkers". The more I read about it the more I realized the rhetoric around it was a little overheated. -Paul
[2021-04-06 13:27:15] - a: A mistake to me implies they didn't know what they were doing. I'm not sure that's the right word. I'm fine just saying aspects of the law are bad. For the record, I believe I was the first to bring this up over a week ago ([2021-03-26 17:01:32]). -Paul
[2021-04-05 23:07:22] - and I don't agree that the president's lies about the law are a "minor issue". - mig
[2021-04-05 23:00:50] - a: sure I think we've established where we agree ("the law has bad elements") and where we don't (whether the reaction is rational or not). - mig
[2021-04-05 21:20:15] - mig: you've said the law is bad, paul has said the law is bad, and i've said the law is bad. nobody loves hyperbole, of course, but we can all agree the law needs to change? can we all agree that whoever wrote it and whoever signed it into law, probably made a mistake? ~a
[2021-04-05 20:32:27] - https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1378394756259139599 a tl:dr of the GA law. Honestly a mixed bag. There is bad stuff but the actual bad doesn't nearly match the hyperbolic complaints being made. - mig
[2021-04-05 19:48:08] - a: Yeah, he said it was worse than Jim Crow, not compared it to the holocaust. The holocaust comment was about the Kentucky LP's tweet about vaccine passports (although, in their defense, I suppose it was not necessarily about the holocaust but about discrimination against Jews in Nazi Germany). -Paul
[2021-04-05 18:48:09] - gotcha, thanks. ~a
[2021-04-05 18:47:25] - https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-says-mlb-should-pull-georgia-all-star-game-over-jim-crow-on-steroids-voting-laws Biden went on to describe the new lawsโwhich would place ID requirements on voting and limit the use of ballot drop boxesโas โJim Crow on steroids.โ - mig
[2021-04-05 18:41:07] - paul: biden mentioned jim crow or the holocaust? i didn't see that in either of miguel's links. i know you're like partly kidding, but i know i've heard biden say "jim crow" before, but i don't think it was recent was it? ~a
[2021-04-05 18:28:33] - a: No, I know CNN didn't. But the President did.
And yes, private orgs can do whatever they want. I'm a little surprised to see so many liberals so giddy about massive private corporations exerting influence on government policy, though. -Paul[2021-04-05 17:50:58] - paul: i'm not sure cnn discussed the holocaust when discussing vaccine passports either. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:50:35] - paul: "racist and Jim Crow". i don't think cnn did this, but i do know that some people do this. "MLB boycotts", that's a private company though, and i'm not sure i disagree with them in making this decision. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:50:05] - a: It goes back to how vaccine passports probably aren't equivalent to the holocaust.
-Paul[2021-04-05 17:49:36] - a: "i knew when i posted it that we kinda had to take cnn's word that these bills were making voting "harder"" Yeah, and to the point about us agreeing more than it sometimes seems: I'm guessing most of these bills are bad with maybe even bad intentions. I'm probably against most of them. It just irks me how any laws which make voting harder are immediately labeled as racist and Jim Crow and cause things like MLB boycotts. -Paul
[2021-04-05 17:32:53] - a: if those hours changed one way or another, that would be a BFD. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:32:13] - mig: when you're going to have people voting on a weekday, on a work day, and not have it be a holiday, why are we quibbling about 7pm (option) vs 5pm (required)? it seems like we should either have voting be multi-day (no-excuse-early/absentee, and whatnot), or on a weekend, or on a holiday, or like midnight to midnight or something like that? ~a
[2021-04-05 17:31:49] - mig: the washington post isn't the conservative bastion you're making it out to be. i think if ONLY the washington post was fighting the good fight, on this minor issue, that's fairly sufficient, right? ~a
[2021-04-05 17:30:02] - a: It's been literally just Wapo's Glenn Kessler and maybe some people at fox that have been calling this out. I don't see anything on CNN, MSNBC, Politico or any other outlets talking about presidential falsehoods. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:24:06] - mig: the media is banding together to fight falsehoods from a sitting president. you're literally quoting people in the media asking the administration about this shit. and you're harping on a fairly minor distinction about the law: calling it ethically repulsive. you've totally lost me, miguel. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:22:48] - mig: i'll definitely disagree there. the law is bad, we agree. the biden administration fucked up some details (now it looks like it was probably with intention) about a bad law, and you think the bad law that, all three of us agree is bad, that makes voting shitty for people of georgia WAY less ethically repulsive? wtf. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:22:45] - remember when the media as a whole banded together to fight falsehoods from a sitting president? Good fucking times. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:20:06] - a: so while I don't like the GA law itself, I find the administration's actions way more ethically repulsive. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:19:35] - a: sure the law isn't great. However, it is outrageously inappropriate that the president calls for boycott actions based on falsehoods, and it's not too outlandish to think the president's lies might have swayed those private actions. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:17:12] - mig: but you and i both agree that the GA law is bad, right? many of the boycotts of georgia aren't coming from the biden administration. private companies, right? ~a
[2021-04-05 17:16:06] - paul: understand. i knew when i posted it that we kinda had to take cnn's word that these bills were making voting "harder" ~a
[2021-04-05 17:15:51] - a: I don't like boycotts in general, even more so if they are based on outrageous lies. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:14:58] - mig: i'm for boycotts of georgia, because i don't like the GA law as a whole. but i understand that you are fairly against boycotts in general. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:14:38] - a: Could be, the thing is that it's hard to tell. The article is a little light on details considering it is covering like 50+ bills. There is mention of half of them making absentee voting harder, and some talk about more stringent voter id requirements. Other than that it's hard to tell exactly what these bills are doing. -Paul
[2021-04-05 17:14:04] - on top of all that, he's been using these lies to voice support for economic boycotts of Georgia, which I find pretty repulsive, even if I don't like the GA law as a whole. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:13:14] - mig: "is it?" what was this in reference to? i'll concede that the biden admin fucked up here, but remind me what that had to do with "the pendulum" swinging, or whatever you were referring to? ~a
[2021-04-05 17:11:43] - mig: oof. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:10:21] - a: the administration is still after the record has been corrected, repeating these lies. Biden's senility is not a good excuse. - mig
[2021-04-05 17:03:31] - mig: also (and i'm sure more talk about this will continue) the dude's like almost 80. he probably shouldn't be president. misinformed, addled, sure. but not lying really. ~a
[2021-04-05 17:02:12] - mig: "Biden may have been briefed on an early version of the bill โ 'there were 25 versions floating around' โ and he did not get an update on the final version". assuming he's not messing this up on purpose (which i could believe, honestly), i wouldn't call this "outrageous" or "lies". i would call it misinformed, but i mean, its pretty understandable if you were briefed on one version and another version got passed moments later. ~a
[2021-04-05 16:59:42] - i won't speak for all democrats, but i'm willing to wager that most democrats that are legitimately "securing the vote against Russian interference" are also going way out of their way to NOT make it harder to vote. ~a
[2021-04-05 16:59:39] - a: is it? I'm not a fan of the georgia law, but clearly people like Biden are repeating pretty outrageous lies about what's actually i the laws. - mig
[2021-04-05 16:58:28] - a: To be clear, I'm guessing a lot of it is crap in response to: "Trump didn't lose! Millions of illegal votes! Stop the steal!", but weren't Democrats all up in arms about securing the vote against Russian interference for the previous 5 years or so? Maybe some of these are legit. -Paul
[2021-04-05 16:56:55] - paul: "Not every bill introduced will pass, or even reach a vote" of course this is true, but unless all or most of those bills are being introduced for political reasons, then they at least have a chance. ignoring the bills that are introduced for political reasons, the rest wouldn't waste their time introducing a bill that doesn't have a chance. ~a
[2021-04-05 16:56:01] - a: I would be interested in reading some sober, non-hysterical takes on these bills, though. Like, is some of this a return to historical norms after some states were more permissive in 2020? Is some of it in response to actual voter irregularities and problems that cropped up in 2020 (there were some, even if they were small and insignificant)? Is this just Jim Eagle? -Paul
[2021-04-05 16:54:11] - a: Heh, I don't know if making it harder to vote is "my wish". I just don't know if it's the racist disaster of democracy to require things like an ID to vote. Also, it's worth noting (as the article does): "Not every bill introduced will pass, or even reach a vote." -Paul
[2021-04-05 16:50:55] - paul: Ryan and Gyan (one letter off): both -3%. Henri and Hiren (zero letters off): both +12%, or more. i'm having a hard time believing these are all real people. if your last name is "Investing", i guess it does make sense that you'd be interested in investing.
~a[2021-04-05 16:25:25] - lawmakers in 47 fucking states have introduced bills that would make it harder to vote. welp. paul, it looks like you got your wish. its not getting easier to vote, that pendulum is swinging hard the other way. ~a
[2021-04-03 21:26:15] - Hello
prev <-> next