prev <-> next
[2021-04-29 17:28:43] - mig: what's the point? ~a
[2021-04-29 17:28:15] - a: sure it was a stunt. But I knew what the point of it was, and I thought it was pretty obvious. - mig
[2021-04-29 16:23:45] - maybe the refresh was the cause? ~a
[2021-04-29 16:22:58] - man I even refreshed to try and avoid double posting cause it was lagging on my end for a second. Oh well. -Daniel
[2021-04-29 16:22:31] - mig: I don't think people stopped caring - Journalists have not yet been permitted inside the camps since President Joe Biden took office in January, although the White House says they will be. Thats the part from the article that should probably be pressed. I think Biden has said its something they are working on. Maybe people trust that is more true than when it was trump? -Daniel
[2021-04-29 16:22:01] - mig: I don't think people stopped caring - Journalists have not yet been permitted inside the camps since President Joe Biden took office in January, although the White House says they will be. Thats the part from the article that should probably be pressed. I think Biden has said its something they are working on. Maybe people trust that is more true than when it was trump? -Daniel
[2021-04-29 16:03:10] - mig: "why people are still baffled as to the reason for it" are you not baffled? i don't get it. seems like a stunt to me. i think she's trying to own the libs? sorry, i'm also baffled. ~a
[2021-04-29 16:03:06] - It seemed pretty obvious. But I guess conditions for migrants isn't on the list of things democrats care about now that their guy is in charge. - mig
[2021-04-29 16:00:59] - https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/1387587686500904962 i thought this was pretty humorous, but curious why people are still baffled as to the reason for it. - mig
[2021-04-28 17:31:51] - removing cars from one road in dc (on nps land). for context this road has always been closed to cars on the weekend. the recent change (2020) was to keep this road closed to cars every day. and some people are trying to make the change, which has been net-positive, permanent. there is one road like this in maryland as well. ~a
[2021-04-28 17:29:52] - paul: "clamoring to get shots to help OTHER people" i guess it doesn't have to just be the one thing. it's a combination? 0. chance of dying. 1. there are the lifelong side effects of catching covid. 2. there are the chance of killing people in your immediate family. 3. there are the chance of indirectly killing people in your community. i don't think it needs to just be one thing. ~a
[2021-04-28 17:27:29] - a: For the lightning analogy, I more meant the difference between the chance an unvaccinated healthy young person (which is what Rogan was talking about) will die of COVID versus the chance a vaccinated healthy young person would die of COVID. I'm pretty sure it's a tiny probability. -Paul
[2021-04-28 17:25:59] - a: I'm completely fine with it because I don't fear needles and have a high degree of confidence that the vaccines are safe, but I imagine most people are a little more worried on both accounts. -Paul
[2021-04-28 17:25:10] - a: I can understand it being a hard sell to tell somebody, "You need to get this experimental new vaccine, which might have some bad side effects, not to protect you, but to protect others". -Paul
[2021-04-28 17:24:30] - a: Especially when it comes to medical things, right? How many people donate blood or are clamoring to get shots to help OTHER people and not themselves? -Paul
[2021-04-28 17:23:23] - a: ""most people go through life being inherently pretty selfish" i would not argue that." Fair. I guess I was thinking of things like maximizing tax deductions being selfish (that money could go to the government to help poor people!) or trying to get a good deal on a car or whatever. I feel like most people think of themselves first and foremost. -Paul
[2021-04-28 15:43:12] - paul: chance of getting hit by lightning is 1:500000. back-of-the envelope, chance of a person (age 0-49), who already has covid, of dying is like 1:3500. i'm ready to field your dissatisfaction with this: i know i'm assuming a LOT of things to get us here. if you add "heathy" to these numbers, i agree it'll be closer, but still not in "lightning" ballpark. if you don't assume you already have covid, then you're right of course. ~a
[2021-04-28 15:25:44] - paul: "Does he need to explicitly lead with a disclaimer about being selfish?" yes? unless he wants that to be the first response to anything he says. ~a
[2021-04-28 15:24:45] - paul: if i was to talk to a super-selfish person, who also confirmed that they don't care about their own family. i'd still tell them to get the vaccine. the side effects of the virus for people who live sound super lame. ~a
[2021-04-28 15:21:11] - paul: "most people go through life being inherently pretty selfish" i would not argue that. maybe that's joe rogan's shtick, i dunno much about joe rogan. but, most selfish people at least pretend to be non-selfish, right? ~a
[2021-04-28 15:20:47] - paul: you skipped over the lifelong side effects. ~a
[2021-04-28 15:20:46] - a: Having said that, I 100% agree that the argument about spreading is valid, in case that's not clear. -Paul
[2021-04-28 15:20:20] - a: "healthy people die from covid too" Right, but it's extremely rare. That's like saying, "the problem with saying it's okay to go outside is that sometimes lightning strikes you". -Paul
[2021-04-28 15:19:32] - a: Does he need to explicitly lead with a disclaimer about being selfish? I understand that a lot of people who don't want to get vaccinated might not be thinking about others, but I would also argue most people go through life being inherently pretty selfish. -Paul
[2021-04-28 15:15:47] - paul: (there are other problems too. if you're a healthy person, but you're daily going to crowded events indoors, your chance of catching covid goes up. lots of healthy people who catch covid give it to their family members, so thinking selfishly doesn't work there either. what's more, healthy people die from covid too, and the ones that don't die have serious lifelong side effects. if we're assuming that you're going to catch it?) ~a
[2021-04-28 14:59:45] - paul: if rogan started with: "i don't care about other people, so if you're like me and you don't care about people", that would be one thing. but he didn't start there. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:58:15] - paul: not at all. rogan wasn't outlining the selfishness in his original statement: "if you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you’re eating well, like, I don't think you need to worry about this". there are multiple problems here, but the selfishness i think is the main problem. you will inadvertently and indirectly kill others with your actions. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:57:21] - a: Are those videos connected to news articles about people doing bad things?
I mean, I guess I've seen plenty of videos of unvaccinated people tightly packed together and yelling as well, but I'm not sure how representative that is of the general populace... -Paul[2021-04-28 14:55:41] - a: Can't Rogan and Fauci both be right? If you are thinking purely selfishly, then a young healthy person probably doesn't need to get the vaccine. At the same time, isn't Fauci's job to think about the entire population? So of course it makes sense to think of it in the sense of preventing the spread to others. -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:51:47] - mig: like a light-green or something? that would be better, i agree. i'm guessing they were trying to make it idiot-proof at the expense of removing information. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:50:53] - paul: sure. i guess i misspoke. i shouldn't have said that thing about wearing masks outdoors since its old? still, your original statement about videos: most videos i've seen came out before the change in guidance. there are many churches, full of unvaccinated people, holding services, and assume they aren't doing harm? ~a
[2021-04-28 14:50:33] - a: I think it's more of a quibble with the degrees of safe listed. Feel like there should be maybe one or two more levels of measurement of "safe". - mig
[2021-04-28 14:48:24] - related joe rogan news ~a
[2021-04-28 14:47:53] - a: I mean, as I understand the guidance (and the science informing it), two weeks from now (once I am fully vaccinated), I shouldn't have to wear a mask outdoors unless I'm planning on going somewhere like a concert or protest or other mass gathering of people (which I almost never went to anyway). -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:46:08] - paul: also, for what its worth, i'm technically not "fully vaccinated". i get my second dose tomorrow. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:44:38] - paul: shrug. i could be wrong. i guess it depends on if a crowded area like a storefront or a grouping of randoms counts as row 3 or row 5. maybe i can now just stop wearing a mask outdoors in general??? ~a
[2021-04-28 14:41:47] - paul: i'm looking at both columns. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:41:09] - a: Hmmmm, it could be that we're making different assumptions. I am looking at the column for vaccinated people because I believe most of the US is now in the area where anybody who wants a vaccine can get one. Are you looking at the unvaccinated column? -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:38:34] - paul: "Wearing masks outdoors" maybe this is less of an issue in the herndon area, but you're supposed to wear a mask outdoors if you're in close proximity to other people (like in a crowd of people). i never wear a mask on my bike, but when i'm on foot i'm often very close to others at storefronts and large gatherings of people. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:36:11] - mig: what sort of quibbles? i'm seriously asking . . . i'm considering changing my behaviors based on some of these recommendations. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:35:53] - a: "most people i see videos of online, seem to be under-careful vs over-careful" What videos do you watch online? It's so interesting to me, because I would say the vast majority of my experience seems to be of people being overly cautious: Wearing masks outdoors, wiping down surfaces, etc. -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:35:19] - a: minor quibbles on some of the instances, but .. mostly reasonable. - mig
[2021-04-28 14:22:01] - paul: i did have a person yell at me (just once) for not wearing a mask outside in an unpopulated situation. it didn't hurt my feelings though. i have thick skin, i guess? ~a
[2021-04-28 14:20:56] - paul: there's a huge gap, i agree. but i probably disagree where that gap exists. most people i see videos of online, seem to be under-careful vs over-careful. but also, things change, and it takes people a while to catch up. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:20:18] - a: Ah, he is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. So many orgs. WTO, CDC, NIAID... -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:18:09] - paul: no. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:17:08] - a: Is Fauci the head of the CDC? -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:16:34] - a: But, yeah, I think there is a HUGE gap right now between what our best understanding of COVID is and what the general public thinks. -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:16:27] - i know you weren't referring to yourself in the third person, there is no confusion there. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:15:59] - a: "the cdc doesn't currently say masks after vaccination aren't necessary" I know... did I say otherwise? By "Paul" I meant Rand Paul and not me.
Sorry for the confusion. -Paul[2021-04-28 14:15:32] - paul: according to the updated guidelines you're supposed to wear a mask outside: unless you're alone, or with members of your household, or have been vaccinated. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:12:54] - paul: i know surfaces and hands are different, but the current guidance does suggest washing hands in some circumstances. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:11:39] - paul: the cdc doesn't currently say masks after vaccination aren't necessary. check again? but also, fauci != cdc. fauci is just a man. but also the cdc can make mistakes too. ~a
[2021-04-28 14:11:04] - a: Related: I got my second jab just an hour ago and on the way back was listening to a podcast talking about how unscientific a lot of the things people are still doing are: like wiping down surfaces and wearing masks outside. Heck, the medical place I went to get my second shot was still wiping down chairs! -Paul
[2021-04-28 14:10:02] - a: I was just going to post about the new CDC guidance. Wasn't this the type of thing Rand Paul and Fauci were arguing about a month ago? Paul was saying masks after vaccination wasn't necessary and Fauci was saying it was still necessary? -Paul
[2021-04-28 13:55:55] - thoughts on cdc's newest chart? i know people will likely ignore it, but wonder if you guys were ok with these suggestions / risk assessments? ~a
[2021-04-28 11:33:42] - a: i doubt it has changed. These type of laws are unkind to men/boys by design, and any attempt to change them would probably would be met with resistance by women/progressive groups. - mig
[2021-04-28 02:04:40] - a: Careful, you're starting to sound libertarian adjacent by realize how crappy the government handles things sometimes.
More seriously, this sounds like the types of things I would occasionally complain about way back in college. Seems like the courts are still a little biased against fathers, even if they were underage at the time. -Paul[2021-04-27 19:53:47] - "charging a crime victim with child support, the courts have consistently said states have every right to do so". like, how are the laws written this badly? i guess i could imagine "crime victim" maybe being too general or vague, but the child of a 14 year old rape victim? how? ~a
[2021-04-27 19:50:33] - sweet jesus. til. rapist victim owes "$15,000 in back child support". story is from 2014. arizona fucked up bad here. i hope by now its fixed, but wow. ~a
[2021-04-27 19:16:19] - rhode island isn't even the least populated state with 2 congressional districts. ~a
[2021-04-27 14:40:19] - daniel: i've been to providence. it's a pretty small city. but, like the wyoming and vermont populations are so ridiculously small: their entire states are smaller than dc (population-wise), which is already a pretty small city. ~a
[2021-04-27 14:37:32] - I'm surprised that RI has two districts. Thats kinda crazy on some level. -Daniel
[2021-04-27 14:37:12] - It would be neat to help be part of a TX shift to more purple but we shall see! -Daniel
[2021-04-27 14:32:03] - a: I can't think of any other reason Texas would gain. Maybe they gave one for Elon Musk? -Paul
[2021-04-27 14:29:21] - one electoral vote per person? wow, generous. ~a
[2021-04-27 14:28:47] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/26/politics/census-reapportionment-2020-takeaways/index.html Texas gains two electoral votes thanks to Daniel and Andrea moving there. -Paul
[2021-04-27 14:22:44] - a: Cool, good to know, thanks. I kind of assumed as much, and I'm at the point where I basically do this anyway, but I haven't been doing it for my chromebook. I am about to get a new chromebook and would really like some more flexibility in terms of charging it instead of being married to that single charger. -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:57:34] - paul: "I always feel a tiny bit bad" you should not feel bad. it will charge slower, and unless you need it charged quickly, that's not a bad thing. since your first comment, i've googled around a bit, and yes, usb-c has tons of power negotiation schemes and what-not. other than slower charging (or no charging), you shouldn't notice any other symptoms. slower charging, other than being annoying, does not harm the device. ~a
[2021-04-27 13:53:03] - a: But I know it "works" for my newer phone and/or tablets with beefier batteries.... it just maybe might charge more slowly. I always feel a tiny bit bad about not using the "right" charger, but I wonder if I should. -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:52:22] - a: The same theory applies to other things too, though. For example, I have a ton of charging bases for things like phones and kindles and whatnot where you can swap out the cable (so it was a micro-USB but I can put a USB-C now). I'm almost positive those older charging bases were weaker for phones with smaller batteries originally... -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:44:54] - paul: they actually just added a thing to android, where if you charge your phone while you're sleeping it'll intentionally slow down the charging of your battery. to increase lifespan. ~a
[2021-04-27 13:44:26] - paul: AH. i understand your point. i've never had a laptop that accepted usb-c. so, i guess you're in a different world that me. (i'm actually not super up on the usb-c standard, tbh) my *guess* is that you're still fine. if anything it'll increase the lifespan of your battery
because, it'll be forced to charge it slower. ~a[2021-04-27 13:42:14] - a: Or, maybe more to my specific point, I have a power strip that has USB connections on it. Could I use a USB-C cable to charge my chromebook through that? Or will it cause some sort of issue for my battery which might reduce its lifespan or something? -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:41:03] - a: I mean the provided power brick too. For example, my chromebook charges through USB-C but came with its own charger. I am guessing it's a beefier charger than my phone charger. -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:36:52] - paul: if its a standard, i'll use it as such. usb-c is a standard: so i'll use a usb-c to charge any device is usb-c. i'm wondering what the alternative to this is though. "i only use this usb-c cable to charge THAT usb-c device?" that seems like a weird superstition. but maybe its something my mom would do? ~a
[2021-04-27 13:32:48] - a: The changes to TJ admissions. The movement to deemphasize standardized tests. The arguments against things like charter schools. The reforms being attempted in NYC to attempt to spread out students among all schools in the name of equity. -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:30:49] - How do people here handle power cables for devices? Do you only use the power supply / cable that came with the device? Or is it: "if it fits, it'll work" and you will plug anything into whatever cable fits? -Paul
[2021-04-27 13:28:47] - paul: "actions being taken by the education system" which actions? ~a
[2021-04-27 13:27:19] - a: Yeah, I don't know. I saw a few articles quoting that legislator so it sounded legit, but maybe he's being hyperbolic and the media just ran with the story instead of investigating? It sounds like a drastic move, but it also seems perfectly inline with the current rhetoric and actions being taken by the education system. -Paul
[2021-04-26 15:46:40] - paul: and "School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses". so who's lying. is vdoe lying or is ian serotkin lying? why should i trust ian serotkin? ~a
[2021-04-26 15:46:38] - paul: i'm a bit confused though. vdoe specifically says "[the new plan] would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement" and "Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs." ~a
[2021-04-26 15:40:14] - ugh, searching for "advanced math inequality" gets me links to articles about literal mathematical inequalities. ~a
[2021-04-26 15:21:07] - I don't know that re-org'ing the curiculum to get rid of Algebra I /II or Geometry matter if those concepts and stuff all get folded into the other classes but it does seem odd to not allow students to progress if they go faster. -Daniel
[2021-04-26 11:18:45] - mig: So he was let go? Last I heard he had been relieved of teaching duties and his contract was coming up for renewal soon (which he suspected would not get renewed). -Paul
[2021-04-25 02:51:21] - payl: unsurprisingly he was let go from his job not long after this article was published. - mig
[2021-04-24 21:34:13] - https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-moving-eliminate-accelerated-math-204158628.html And I say this as somebody who heard just yesterday that apparently Virginia is considering eliminating all accelerated math courses in the name of equity. -Paul
[2021-04-24 21:32:34] - https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students I'm curious what people here think of this. Obviously it's one side of the story and could be exaggerated, but even if it is half true it is really worrisome to me as somebody who ultimately doesn't know a lot of what is taught to my kids in school. -Paul
[2021-04-24 06:22:51] - https://youtu.be/-uoLyx40CLc?t=321 Don Lemon's take on this situation. It addresses some of the criticism of "should've shot in the leg" or "should've used a taser." - mig
[2021-04-22 17:21:03] - oof. ~a
[2021-04-22 17:19:40] - a: https://people.com/politics/rep-dan-crenshaw-says-hell-be-effectively-blind-for-about-a-month-after-retina-surgery/ He's a bit out of pocket right now. -Paul
[2021-04-22 16:37:58] - someone find dan crenshaw. ~a
[2021-04-22 16:10:58] - mig: I get the reading / case for it being incitement but I think given the chauvin verdict earlier this week and a lot of people talking about that in terms of accountability vs justice that I would read it as referring to that. But Lebron did delete it so that seems to acknowledge that it wasn't good either in its intended way or being misread. -Daniel
[2021-04-22 13:17:37] - paul: oh yeah. it was pretty awful. I would be close to classifying it as incitement. - mig
[2021-04-22 13:07:20] - mig: Did you see Lebron's tweet? -Paul
[2021-04-22 13:07:03] - a: There's definitely video. I've seen it. I'm sure you can find it by searching. -Paul
[2021-04-21 21:12:06] - daniel: sure, I'm not saying we can't have a conversation about ultimately whether the shooting was justified. I'd like more details to come in. But I think it's also mega-fucking-bonkers to talk about how police somehow shouldn't be trying to prevent someone from getting stabbed like the Valerie Jarret tweet seems to be implying. - mig
[2021-04-21 21:09:48] - In terms of answers to the question "Why did you shoot that person?" the answer of "She was literally moments away from stabbing someone" is a pretty good answer. Now there could be a lot of other context there but thats the luxury of time part I mentioned below that I don't know if the cop had. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 21:08:36] - mig: Sure but thats where I think people smarter than me I guess would need to weigh in on the subject. I don't think this case is the poster child case certainly for limiting police shooting but I think can still be part of the conversation. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 21:07:27] - Yeah definitely not like Chauvin and situations with immanent harm are certainly more difficult to parse cause you don't have any luxury of time. But I think there is also room to after the fact question if four shots are the answer society is best served by. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 21:05:16] - is that the only picture? there's not a video of this interaction? the picture looks pretty damning, but it's also weird that there's just one picture. ~a
[2021-04-21 21:05:00] - daniel: and while attempting to make a non-lethal shot is an understandable notion, you're upping your risk of missing and accidentally hitting a bystander. - mig
[2021-04-21 21:03:40] - daniel: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzgtqSHUUAEpXed?format=jpg&name=small forewarning it's a little disturbing. - mig
[2021-04-21 20:57:33] - -Daniel
[2021-04-21 20:57:29] - mig: I haven't seen the picture. Link? Maybe just shoot her in the leg once?
[2021-04-21 20:52:33] - and I get to sit here and think about it. The cop doesn't have that luxury. - mig
[2021-04-21 20:51:58] - daniel: what's the alternative? I'm looking at the photo of the person who was shot looking like she's about to knife another girl and I'm not seeing any what the other course of action is. - mig
[2021-04-21 20:31:41] - I don't know if its anti cop or not but I think the idea that shooting someone multiple times might not be the answer. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 20:22:58] - I'm trying to process that we are in a world that this person is so anti-cop that they would rather someone get stabbed and potentially killed than for police to intervene when they might arguably need to. - mig
[2021-04-21 20:12:36] - https://twitter.com/ValerieJarrett/status/1384888056621174786 is this real life? - mig
[2021-04-21 17:04:03] - paul: but even if it happens zero times, i'm more concerned with policy: how many kneel-on-back policies are going to be reevaluated? greater than zero of them? ~a
[2021-04-21 17:02:32] - paul: "Oh, wow, I probably don't want to kill somebody by kneeling on their back for a long time now" actually i think this is *exactly* what will happen. (crazy-hypothetical/inference mode) this happens like one time in a million, in those situations the officer might think twice about the gravity of their actions, like even one time in a hundred! even if that saves like two lives, you're already at net-positive. ~a
[2021-04-21 16:58:14] - "In the federal system, former law enforcement officers usually go to generally population unless a threat exists" yikes. jeeze, would "a threat exists" like always be the case? ~a
[2021-04-21 16:57:03] - a: Sure. But I think both are undesirable. Again, Chauvin's life has been made worse due to the verdict, but I can't imagine a lot of cops are suddenly thinking, "Oh, wow, I probably don't want to kill somebody by kneeling on their back for a long time now". -Paul
[2021-04-21 16:54:22] - paul: "I imagine a lot of officers would still feel compelled to not be in his shoes" avoiding this shitty shit-show circus and avoiding (potentially) decades of prison are two very different situations. ~a
[2021-04-21 16:34:42] - a: Maybe? Even if Chauvin had been found innocent, I imagine a lot of officers would still feel compelled to not be in his shoes. And yes, it obviously changes things for Chauvin, but I was more speaking to people who aren't directly affected (like students in FCPS). -Paul
[2021-04-21 16:19:57] - paul: "one single court case doesn't change much". it probably changes more than we can even foresee. it especially changes stuff for chauvin. but it also has an effect similar to the "chilling effect". but in this situation discouragement of reckless behavior in policies and enforcement. ~a
[2021-04-21 16:18:25] - mig: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html Egged on by politicians too. And yet Twitter remains platformed.
More seriously, though, I can't imagine the pressure on that jury. I like to think I'm principled and would be brave in a scenario like that, but I don't know if I could've voted to acquit (had I thought it was the right call) if I was in the jury. -Paul[2021-04-21 16:15:51] - a: https://twitter.com/sqcrypto/status/1384901045134974978 I haven't delved into the whitepaper yet, but this sounds like something that might interest you. -Paul
[2021-04-21 16:05:09] - paul: we also had the very real possibility that people were going to riot and burn Minneapolis down if Chauvin wasn't found guilty of all 3 counts. As much as the jury was supposedly isolated, I find it a little hard to believe they were oblivious to all the surrounding emotion surround this trial. - mig
[2021-04-21 16:01:45] - And one single court case doesn't change much. -Paul
[2021-04-21 16:01:10] - I'm just a little worried how much people seem to have emotionally invested in this one particular court case. I'm getting emails from FCPS and everything commenting on the verdict and I'm wondering why I need to hear that the superintendent is processing the verdict.... -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:58:54] - a: And I think I heard (didn't see part of this video) that at some point Floyd was in the car and complaining he couldn't breath and was asking to be let out, which could explain why his later claims of being unable to breath were not heeded? -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:57:07] - a: Yeah, the Floyd case was definitely more complex than I think most people realize. There was a lot of video before the knee-on-the-back scenario, and I watched some of it. Floyd was definitely acting weird, and I thought all the cops (including Chauvin) were pretty patient with him at first. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:55:41] - the verdict seems just but I worry about the circus surrounding the trial and the potential long term effects on our system of justice. - mig
[2021-04-21 15:54:45] - i know a lot more about floyd than brown. the floyd case is definitely not cut and dry. it's pretty clear (based on witness testimony) floyd was high. other than being high, he made a lot of other mistakes too. that being said, i'm happy with the verdict. ~a
[2021-04-21 15:52:11] - paul: yeah, yeah, usually these cases are not cut and dry (i decided against using the "black and white" phrase). ~a
[2021-04-21 15:50:35] - ah i see what you mean, never mind. ~a
[2021-04-21 15:49:33] - how so? ~a
[2021-04-21 15:34:31] - a: And I think after learning more about stuff that came out in the trial.... the actual situation was a lot more complex. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:34:04] - a: But I am always super cautious about things like this because I feel like this could have ended up like Ferguson and Michael Brown where initially and for the longest time I thought it was a case where the cop was very much in the wrong and Brown was mostly innocent. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:32:31] - a: Yeah, sorry, I re-read that after I wrote it and realized it sounded like it was implying things I didn't mean to. I include myself with the "already decided" group, although I would hope the jury could somehow try to be impartial going in. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:27:59] - paul: yeah, it sounds like we agree. i started off where i did because you said "everybody seems to have already decided before the trial began that a guilty verdict was the only acceptable one". although i totally agree with this statement, i was reading between the lines, and thought maybe you disagreed with "everybody"'s conclusions. ~a
[2021-04-21 15:23:52] - a: Does that answer? Hopefully I addressed most of the big issues without getting tangled up in legal terms I don't fully understand. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:19:50] - a: was irresponsible and negligent and unnecessary. I believe his actions at least indirectly and probably directly led to Floyd's death. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:18:49] - a: "does this count as agreement?" Sure? I'm super hesitant to make strong statements on things I feel uninformed about. How about this? From what little I've heard, I believe George Floyd would still be alive had Derek Chauvin not placed his knee on his back for so long. I believe Chavin placing his knee on Floyd's back for so long and in the manner he did... -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:07:07] - paul: "doesn't seem unreasonable" does this count as agreement?
~a[2021-04-21 15:06:20] - paul: third-degree murder in minnesota and second-degree unintentional murder usually envolve you doing something super shitty (negligent, reckless, felonious, depraved, etc) but without the intent or premeditation. like, if someone dies while you were being super reckless? ~a
[2021-04-21 15:02:49] - paul: there is nothing premeditated about second-degree unintentional murder or third-degree murder. ~a
[2021-04-21 15:01:06] - a: Like, in this case, manslaughter seems to me like it should be the more appropriate charge, but I guess there can be accidental or unintentional murder too? In that case, from what limited stuff I know, that doesn't seem unreasonable. -Paul
[2021-04-21 15:00:04] - a: I'm assuming "murder" (vs manslaughter) doesn't require premeditation or intent, based on the word "unintentional" in there? One more thing I know is problematic is I have ideas of murder vs manslaughter which is apparently inaccurate. -Paul
[2021-04-21 14:53:28] - I think there are a lot of people that would not have found Chauvin guilty which is why I was surprised there wasn't one on the jury. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 14:37:22] - paul: (with the information you have) do you think chauvin was guilty of second-degree unintentional murder or third-degree murder? ~a
[2021-04-21 14:16:41] - Daniel: I haven't been following the trial at all, so I don't think I have much of an informed opinion. I'm not too surprised at the verdict in the sense that everybody seems to have already decided before the trial began that a guilty verdict was the only acceptable one. Having said that, I also wouldn't have been surprised at something like guilty on manslaughter but not murder. -Paul
[2021-04-21 14:15:15] - a: Yeah, it's nice and vague, right? I guess it would involve some hyperinflation? Or maybe in the case of the USD, a bunch of other countries deciding to stop holding it as reserve currency? -Paul
[2021-04-21 14:12:00] - daniel: "someone on the jury willing to back Chauvin" although i agree with your assessment, it is a bit of a simplification? to "back chauvin" you'd have to explain to the rest of the jury why you think he wasn't being "negligent". i dunno how jury's work, but sometimes i think you aren't anonymous. backing chauvin probably not an easy task. ~a
[2021-04-21 14:05:21] - anyone else surprised by the Chauvin verdict? I think (having not actually sat through the evidence) I would have voted guilty too but I am kind of surprised that there wasn't someone on the jury willing to back Chauvin. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 13:56:20] - you use the word "collapse" a lot. can you be more specific? i probably agree, but it'd be interesting to see what you mean specifically. ~a
[2021-04-21 13:54:54] - Part of my thinking is that, as irresponsible as we have been with our monetary supply, a lot of other countries have been just as irresponsible. So if the USD sees some kind of collapse, I think there's a sizeable chance other fiat currencies will also. -Paul
[2021-04-21 13:51:24] - its amazing to me that the usd hasn't even gone down even a little bit considering our m2 growth rate. ~a
[2021-04-21 13:49:58] - yep i'm not surprised. yikes, the yuan (renminbi) is at 2%. ~a
[2021-04-21 13:47:39] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency - This has the Euro pretty solidly as number 2 by a wide margin so I think that would probably be the next up if something happened to USD. -Daniel
[2021-04-21 02:32:20] - a: Yes, every time I drive past that road there are cars parked there. I legit didn't even realize it was a bike lane for years because of how often cars are parked there (I don't drive past it very often, though). -Paul
[2021-04-21 02:31:25] - a: That's a lot of probablys. Get back to me when you are sure he hates bikers and biking.
-Paul[2021-04-21 02:30:27] - a: "i feel like i'd always prefer a currency that is controlled by nobody than a currency that is controlled by someone who hates me." Yes, this was my exact thinking. China wouldn't want the Euro and the Western democracies wouldn't want the Yuan. At least btc isn't controlled by an enemy. -Paul
[2021-04-20 20:40:27] - oh! i also found that road you posted a picture of where you were like "is this a bike lane"??? and i was like "yes". when i biked by, there were totally people parked there right in the middle of the bike lane
~a[2021-04-20 20:36:54] - i found a guy on reddit who: 1. plays sc2 2. probably a republican 3. probably hates bikers and biking 4. probably lives in or near reston. paul i found you a buddy! ~a
[2021-04-20 19:50:14] - i feel like i'd always prefer a currency that is controlled by nobody than a currency that is controlled by someone who hates me. ~a
[2021-04-20 19:49:40] - daniel: "central banks would want a gov controlled currency" ok, i'm going to switch sides here, but: why? why do central banks want a government controlled currency? especially a government controlled currency of a government that is hostile towards your central bank? ~a
[2021-04-20 18:50:42] - I think central banks would want a gov controlled currency. Euro / Pound / Yen / Something created by Saudi Arabia / something adopted by OPEC. -Daniel
[2021-04-20 18:41:43] - yes, crazy. and coming from me, that means something
as weird as it is that tsla moved from usd to btc, I don't see central banks making that same decision any time soon. still it is possible. ~a[2021-04-20 18:32:10] - Oooh, this is a fun hypothetical, though. Right this moment, if I had to bet on what would replace USD as a reserve currency if some sort of collapse happens... I might rank bitcoin above the Euro. Crazy? -Paul
[2021-04-20 18:24:37] - I do hate European governments and central banks. The Europ could be a contender based on it being a conglomeration versus the Yuan being a single country though... -Paul
[2021-04-20 18:02:19] - daniel: paul will say "no" to the euro, because he hates how liberal europeans are, but i think you're probably right. something like 40% of the non-us economy is in europe. ~a
[2021-04-20 18:00:34] - Euro? I think that would be my first guess without a ton of thought. -Daniel
[2021-04-20 17:58:35] - Daniel: But, yeah, it's hard for me to think through how a dollar collapse would affect things seeing as it is the reserve currency. What would take its place? Yuan? Bitcoin? Gold? Nothing? I need to re-read "What has government done to our money"... -Paul
[2021-04-20 17:57:37] - Daniel: I am overweight (compared to traditional recommendations) on international funds in Vanguard, I believe. Also, some of my largest holdings are internationally based: SHOP (Canada), MELI (Argentina), SE (Signapore). -Paul
[2021-04-20 17:56:04] - paul: currency collapse would be pretty bad. A generator and potato seeds might be a good bet then. -Daniel
[2021-04-20 17:55:29] - paul: international investing? or does a us currency fiasco mean you think overseas currencies would get jacked too? -Daniel
[2021-04-20 17:40:27] - well maybe yieldstreet is for you then? i'll stick with my bonds, mostly because i trust in the bogle. ~a
[2021-04-20 17:38:32] - a: Yeah, that's why I often keep asking if people have good suggestions for investment vehicles to hedge against inflation or a currency collapse or something. I feel like I rely a little too much on stocks and want to make sure I have a little real estate / crypto / CDs / etc just in case. -Paul
[2021-04-20 17:17:34] - the issue i have with a large "cash tent" is the possibility of inflation. but i guess if there is inflation, then cds will likely be putting out more yield, so that's probably no big deal. ~a
[2021-04-20 17:09:41] - mmmm. that's interesting yeah. if you chose to create a "cash tent", that's probably fine too. honestly, i'll be having a cash tent regardless, because bonds have sequence of returns risk too. ~a
[2021-04-20 17:08:28] - a: So I guess the only difference between us is you will be putting your "safe" cash in bonds and I will just have it sitting in a a savings account getting 0.01%
-Paul[2021-04-20 17:03:49] - paul: "I want 80-95% of that money to still be in maximum money making mode while I live off that super safe money" yes i'll be keeping 80-95% (or higher) of my money in stocks for the entirety of retirement except for a short 18-year bond-tent period. ~a
[2021-04-20 17:02:47] - paul: hmmm. weakly? i know there are a shit-ton of studies that have studied at this, but when i (as a layman) look at bond returns during 2008 and during 2000, bonds are just insanely stable compared to stocks. the thing that makes bonds go up and down (only a tiny bit) are interest rate changes, *not* stock changes. ~a
[2021-04-20 17:00:23] - a: How much are bonds negatively correlated to the stock market? Strongly? -Paul
[2021-04-20 17:00:09] - a: Got it, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, sorry. I was more giving my perspective that I want my next few years of money to be super safe and everything else to be super wealth growing. -Paul
[2021-04-20 16:58:37] - Daniel: So I want 80-95% of that money to still be in maximum money making mode while I live off that super safe money. Maybe my problem is having too much faith that stocks will eventually give me a positive return? -Paul
[2021-04-20 16:52:39] - paul: "When I retire, I don't need 100% of my money to be 'safe' or even 'safer'" i don't want to speak for daniel, but i doubt he is suggesting otherwise. i'll say that i don't plan on having 100% of my money in bonds in retirement: quite the opposite: i'll have ~1% of my money in bonds for the majority of retirement. (current plan is to bond tent from 55% down to 1%). ~a
[2021-04-20 16:48:52] - Daniel: I agree with pretty much everything you said. I guess the way I look at it is this: When I retire, I don't need 100% of my money to be "safe" or even "safer". In theory, I need something like 5-20% of my money to be "safe" (depending on how long you anticipate a market pullback might last and how much you anticipate withdrawing). -Paul
[2021-04-20 16:25:21] - Are you just discounting the risk? Or just want to be greedy? Or focused on passing along more money to the generation to your own detriment? Or something else? Cause the idea of bonds is to have something in the middle where you can grow a little with less risk. But you seem to be discounting that as a use case. -Daniel
[2021-04-20 16:24:06] - Paul: You are very focused on the growth part but there is a risk part especially in the shorter term. So the idea is if you are near your retirement date your need to grow should be outweighed by your risk avoidance. -Daniel
[2021-04-20 16:20:15] - a: Right, sure, I'm not against bonds as a concept. I am just not sure I think it makes sense for me to transfer some of my investments from stocks to bonds. I want my safe money safe and my wealth growing money more wealth growier. -Paul
[2021-04-20 15:08:27] - some random website i found on google that talks about some of the different kinds of bonds (loans). ~a
[2021-04-20 15:07:39] - daniel: yes. a bond is a loan. a mortgage is a loan. its like just semantics at a certain point? ~a
[2021-04-20 15:06:55] - also, you're probably even a bond holder too, since all of your stocks hold bond positions (and most of them probably hold both kinds of positions?). ~a
[2021-04-20 15:06:52] - a: All bonds are is just loans / debt right? Like people borrow money and agree to pay back at certain rates? -Daniel
[2021-04-20 15:05:25] - regarding your distaste for bonds, you should probably say that you don't understand the point of "treasury bonds" because "bond" is actually a pretty generalized financial term? you even have a bond: you're a bond seller instead of a bond buyer (its your mortgage). ~a
[2021-04-20 15:02:24] - many of the "notes" (bonds?) are medium-term, like 8 years. ~a
[2021-04-20 15:00:16] - no sorry. november 2020 is the most recent data they've included here. they've existed for many years. ~a
[2021-04-20 14:59:21] - a: So they have a history of 6 months? Yikes. Yeah... I wouldn't personally be opposed to tossing a hundred dollars or something, but like you said, it seems like less upside than stocks with potentially the same risk? It's hard for me to gauge the risk. -Paul
[2021-04-20 14:31:07] - honestly, this seems *way* riskier than stocks, and with really small returns. so worst of both worlds? its an interesting concept, but probably not for me. if anybody decides to use them, you didn't find them from me. ~a
[2021-04-20 14:25:32] - paul: "As of November 2020, we have launched 17 series of notes, with eight series paid in full and the remaining currently performing as expected" ~a
[2021-04-20 14:17:44] - a: Do they have any kind of history of their returns? -Paul
[2021-04-20 14:14:08] - paul: i found this from an advertisement. any thoughts on why i shouldn't try this out? obviously there's a shit-ton of risk, that explains the yield, but it seems like a "different" investment than stocks/bonds? ~a
[2021-04-20 14:06:39] - paul: understood, yeah. i've thought a lot about paying off some of my mortgage, but still haven't done that. i've also considered keeping a fair amount in just cash (checking), because, like you said, the alternatives are so shitty. inflation is relatively low, and other than stocks (and bonds), nobody is paying. i almost never consider cds, because if cd rates are high enough to make it worth my time, bonds will be so much higher. ~a
[2021-04-20 14:03:20] - a: If I was planning on retiring tomorrow (or one year from now), it would be tough because I don't see a ton of conservative places to put money that have non-zero returns. I guess I would just let a chunk of money sit in a "high-yield" savings account? -Paul
[2021-04-20 14:02:14] - a: "if cd rates are low you'd keep 100% in stocks 1 year from retirement?" Probably not 100% in stocks. Is my mortgage paid off? If not, then I would probably consider liquidating some to pay off my mortgage to help reduce some possible future volatility. Am I allowed to withdraw from retirement funds? Am I required to? -Paul
[2021-04-20 13:48:57] - paul: "my plan is to have more than I expect to need before I retire" i'm taking this into account. a lot of people i talk to online talk about the 100% stock plan, and although i think its suboptimal, i think i understand how it is to be done: have much more money. i.e. retire much later? ~a
[2021-04-20 13:47:54] - paul: "Then I probably won't have much in CDs" if cd rates are low you'd keep 100% in stocks 1 year from retirement? ~a
[2021-04-20 13:47:25] - a: Keep in mind that my plan is to have more than I expect to need before I retire, so I'm willing to take on some risk that there is a market collapse the first year of retirement in return for the upside of having more in stocks. -Paul
[2021-04-20 13:46:22] - a: Well, I guess it depends a lot on of factors. Are interest rates near zero? Then I probably won't have much in CDs. Can I get a CD with a 2%+ rate? Then I might pull out ~2 years of expenses and put it into a CD ladder and keep the rest in stocks. -Paul
[2021-04-19 20:51:26] - paul: i understand you haven't given much thought to it, but i'd like you to? for instance, you didn't say "i just don't think its for me" at first, you said "i don't really get the point of them" implying you didn't know why anybody would use them. so, on that note, hypothetically, one year from retirement, paul will have (say) 10% in cds and (say) 90% in equities? this seems weird, so i'm wondering what maybe you'd go with instead? ~a
[2021-04-19 20:49:49] - a: Yeah, I think I got some 15-18 month CDs back in 2018 or 2019. -Paul
[2021-04-19 20:48:35] - a: I am not necessarily against others using them for their retirement plan. I just don't think it's for me. I honestly haven't given a ton of thought to my "I'm retiring in a year" plans, but I actually don't expect to get too conservative with my investments. I will probably still want to keep the majority of my retirement funds in the same growth stocks I own now. -Paul
[2021-04-19 18:10:02] - yeah, ok, looks like rates are like 0% today, but there was a short jump in 2019 where they were around 2%/y. ~a
[2021-04-19 17:44:29] - cd rates are close to 0%/year. 2.5%/year seems abnormal to everything i've found. ~a
[2021-04-19 17:42:48] - paul: hmmm. i'll go back to the beginning: "I think I just see bonds as having less upside than stocks, but less stability than things like CDs, so I don't really get the point of them" do you feel this way for people who are (say) a year from retirement? would you suggest someone oney year from retirement keep 100% of their money in the market? or alternatively would you consider telling them to put any money into a 0.65%/year cd? ~a
[2021-04-19 17:40:09] - Other people probably would lose sleep over their retirement portfolio possibly dropping 30% in a few months, so they might be fine getting lower returns for more "safety". -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:39:30] - Actually, that might be the answer: I think lots of less than ideal financial decisions are made for "peace of mind" reasons. For example, I know people who understand the math is against paying off a mortgage early, but still insist it is the right move for them because they like being debt free. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:38:22] - a: I can sell a CD. In fact, I did in March of 2020. I had CDs that were months away from maturing so I withdrew the money early and paid a little penalty. Still ended up making money, just a little less than the 2.5% or whatever I was initially expecting. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:38:16] - paul: actually the management fee is really low. ~a
[2021-04-19 17:37:37] - a: I don't know why Vanguard chooses what it does, but most funds have a stocks/bonds mix right? That's why I don't use target date funds (well, that, and the management fee). I think that's too conservative for my risk tolerance. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:37:31] - but you put the emergency money into a cd? something i can't sell? ~a
[2021-04-19 17:36:28] - a: I guess I don't see the point of having money which is kind of safe (but not VERY safe) with mediocre growth prospects. To me, I want as much money in stocks as possible (the superior long term wealth grower) and the stuff that I don't have in there is stuff I want super safe in an emergency fund in case I need the money immediately. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:33:53] - daniel: yes, i think so. ~a
[2021-04-19 17:33:42] - daniel: yeah, but even the 2020 fund decided to use 0% cash/cash-equivalents. ~a
[2021-04-19 17:33:00] - CDs vs TIPS is probably because of inflation protection? I guess? That I don't know though. -Daniel
[2021-04-19 17:32:56] - CDs seem like the *worst* thing in the world for an emergency fund. if you need the money today, you typically can't easily sell your CDs on a secondary market. ~a
[2021-04-19 17:32:22] - CD's are to safe for a long term growth fund. Bonds are just the middle ground between stocks and cash / cash equivalents. So if you are trying to have a long term growth fund that is less volatile than all stocks then bonds are a way to do that. -Daniel
[2021-04-19 17:31:26] - (even super-short-term goals like target retirement 2020 use 0% cds as their "emergency fund". they choose bonds+tips in those cases) ~a
[2021-04-19 17:30:24] - paul: it's the BEST of both worlds
great for long term wealth creation (better than CDs) and a safe emergency fund (better than stocks). i feel like, though, i've explained this a bunch of times so i'll go a different direction this time: why would "Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 Fund" keep 0% of its funds in CDs? why do THEY choose the balance that they do? ~a[2021-04-19 17:27:53] - But the craziest thing to me is that he got a presumably almost entirely liberal audience to cheer the idea that Ron DeSantis has done a better job than Cuomo. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:27:20] - And it's pretty crazy how things like "don't worry about disinfecting surfaces" still isn't widely known and people are still freaking out about things like hanging out outside when it's probably safer than hanging out inside. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:25:49] - https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/1383296276020617224 Anybody else watch the Bill Maher monologue about the media's coverage of COVID? I don't want to hype it up, I thought it was just okay with some good points and some bad, but I did think it was interesting to see the divide between Rs and Ds about how deadly they thought COVID is/was. -Paul
[2021-04-19 17:20:01] - a: I think I just see bonds as having less upside than stocks, but less stability than things like CDs, so I don't really get the point of them. Seems like the worst of both worlds. Not great for long term wealth creation (stocks are better) and not great for a safe emergency fund (cash or CDs are better). -Paul
[2021-04-19 14:53:37] - its called the "secondary market" and its what you'd hold if you have shares in "Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund" or "TSP L 2050" or "Fidelity Freedom® 2050 Fund" or whatever. when you and paul think of bonds, i think you're picturing the "primary market". the primary market is dumb. ~a
[2021-04-16 17:45:58] - i understand that you're differentiating "treasury bonds" from like "bonds". but i'm looking at vbtlx (and the etf) which includes a healthy mix of treasury bonds and non-treasury bonds (60/40) all with varying terms and maturities. ~a
[2021-04-16 17:44:04] - daniel: its interesting that you're coming to the conclusion that (in general. in "normal" times) tips have lower return than bonds. i've skimmed the data and i did not come to that conclusion. the 15-year total return, including distributions, on vbtlx and tip are both EXACTLY 4.4%/year and the benchmark indexes that they attempt to replicate are the same too! like, exactly the same return 2005-2020 (which includes 2008). ~a
[2021-04-16 17:36:29] - If you are trying to figure out like TIPS vs a 10 year Treasury bond then I dunno. Probably some math based on cost and inflation risk. -Daniel
[2021-04-16 17:34:47] - With 0 research on this I would have thought TIPS would be more like 1-3% return depending on where inflation was at and be pretty safe. I would think bond funds would average like 3-6% with more risk (and stocks like 7-?% with even more risk). So TIPS underperforming bond funds seems right to me since they are closer to the "Cash / Cash Equivalents" part of asset allocation. -Daniel
[2021-04-16 17:19:22] - daniel: i'm comparing it to vbtlx/vtabx (aka bndw). which is like 60%ish government. so, yeah, i guess i could see that tips is lower risk, and lower reward. but like, it's not a perfect analogy though, because tips is also from the same guys who print the usd. so they're definitely allowed to cheat very hard in the whole risk/reward calculation. also historically, tips do NOT outperform/underperform bndw in risky/unrisky scenarios. ~a
[2021-04-16 16:30:32] - TIPS vs bonds isn't something I know a ton about either. TIPS is treasury though so in my head would have a lower return even though the point is to beat inflation right? Like just on the risk / return spectrum if TIPS is lower risk then in theory should be lower return. Or are you comparing to other treasury bonds? -Daniel
[2021-04-16 16:28:44] - a: I'm not super worried about Vanguard but I get the idea. II think Blackrock / Schwab / Fidelity would be the firms on my list I would look at next. For me I have my half of retirement mostly in Vanguard and Andrea's half mostly in TSP for gov so its not quite all the eggs in one basket. -Daniel
[2021-04-16 15:20:15] - daniel: i'd also like to talk about other non-paul stuff: bonds vs tips. i'm, like, out of my element here and not sure why anyone would NOT pick tips here? i read about it and people talk about liquidity. which is a concept i only have a surface understanding of. i.e. it seems like the liquidity of both should be fine for individuals
~a[2021-04-16 15:10:30] - daniel: do you worry that you're trusting too much in vanguard? i understand that the money is mostly in trusted hands . . . but still, could it be a problem if vanguard had some sort of crisis? i noticed that 85%+ of my money was in vanguard, so i moved a bit of my 401k/ira money (no capital gains), away from vanguard and into ishares, aka blackrock. i know a lot less about ishares, but the expense ratios are similar. thoughts? ~a
[2021-04-15 20:22:48] - i <3 falls church. such a great video. i know a bunch of people in this video! the bearded guy in the opening shot, and the dude talking at 0:17 and again at 0:46, and the restaurant owners at 2:20. ~a
[2021-04-15 20:18:21] - paul: thats why i don't have edit permissions on the new ones?
~a[2021-04-15 20:17:58] - a: Hah, good point. I created the first one too, but you added a bunch of new stuff to it. -Paul
[2021-04-15 19:09:55] - or uuidgen |sed s/-//g ~a
[2021-04-15 19:08:54] - aaron: head --bytes=12 /dev/urandom |sha1sum ~a
[2021-04-15 19:05:39] - daniel: 👉🧍👈 ~a
[2021-04-15 19:04:05] - paul: "while I was tracking thing?" i'll give you the lawyer answer: you were always the one tracking things. you created the first version of the 2017-2019 challenge. i did not. ~a
[2021-04-15 18:57:40] - a: There's been a lot of movement in the past month or so. Did we used to have quarterly numbers while I was tracking things? I used to do quarterly recaps but it's harder to find the time to write stuff now. -Paul
[2021-04-15 18:55:47] - a: Can you point at your gut bacteria? -Daniel
prev <-> next