prev <-> next
[2021-07-16 16:04:55] - paul: "large sections of the public school system in the US is pretty crappy". sure but that can be said about any large system. if you look at the aggregate results, its fairly "3.6 R/h". not great, but not terrible. i'll continue to argue that public education is a good example of where a progressive model has (at least partially and somewhat) worked. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:02:57] - aDaniel: As for education, I think on the whole the US is fine, but I was specifically referring to our public school system (ie, the government run parts of our education system). Isn't it a pretty open secret that large sections of the public school system in the US is pretty crappy? -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:00:00] - a: It's possible I misunderstood. I saw "I think them being the battlegrounds of politics are what make them screwed up" and assumed he meant both are screwed up, but then he followed up by commenting about how it's pretty great. -Paul
[2021-07-16 15:58:51] - We certainly don't have a free market at all in healthcare since it's virtually impossible to get any kind of actual pricing information for healthcare services. We're required by government to get health insurance, and it's closely tied to our employment (thanks to previous government wage freezes in WW2). Government spending is a huge part of the whole healthcare system thanks to medicare and medicaid. -paul
[2021-07-16 15:58:44] - paul: no wait, i think you misunderstood (or i did). daniel and i mostly agree on education? we agree that its not fucked. i said "public education isn't fucked" and he said "public education has turned out pretty great on the whole compared to back in the day". aren't those the same or similar? ~a
[2021-07-16 15:57:09] - aDaniel: Well, it sounds like there is slight disagreement between you two in terms of whether or not those sectors are screwed up or not. Sounds like we both agree healthcare is screwed up, though. I agree we don't have a socialist healthcare system, but how many sectors are MORE regulated then healthcare? Maybe banking? -Paul
[2021-07-16 14:38:29] - paul: yeah, i'm with daniel. your examples are healthcare and public education: healthcare isn't socialist, and public education isn't fucked. our public education system is very average. average for "developed countries", and above average for worldwide. i'm not socialist: the means of production/distribution/etc should generally not be owned by the community, but i sometimes wonder how we could make healthcare better. ~a
[2021-07-16 14:33:25] - Paul: I don't think socialism is the thing thats leading to healthcare and education being screwed up parts of our economy. I think them being the battlegrounds of politics are what make them screwed up. Also for education I think public education has turned out pretty great on the whole compared to back in the day when there wasn't public schooling though I'm certainly not an expert on the topic. -Daniel
[2021-07-16 14:30:57] - a: I know one common misconception is how "socialist" the Scandinavian countries are, when in many ways they are more free market than the US. -Paul
[2021-07-16 14:29:59] - a: Depends on who you ask, right? I prefer the "means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" definition, but I also recognize that the definition has expanded a lot and I use the term more liberally accordingly. -Paul
[2021-07-16 14:28:21] - Daniel: To me, the best argument I can make against socialism in certain aspects of the economy is to point out the efficiencies of the "non-socialist" parts versus the "socialist" parts. What areas are the most socialized? Healthcare. Education. What sectors of our economy are the most screwed up? I would say healthcare and education are up there. -Paul
[2021-07-16 14:27:11] - paul: what is socialism? ~a
[2021-07-16 14:26:41] - Daniel: "Does Bernie even want full socialism?" I honestly don't know. You would have to ask him. I am pretty sure he embraces the "socialist" moniker, though (as does AOC and others). -Paul
[2021-07-16 14:00:36] - Should we have socialism for blenders? Or toaster ovens? No. Should we have socialism for healthcare? Probably. I'm sure there is room to debate both those positions honestly but the point being I think I can hold them without wanting the US to be a "socialist" country. -Daniel
[2021-07-16 13:59:17] - I'm just not sure that the invisible hand / laissez faire always is great for everywhere system / part of our economy. -Daniel
[2021-07-16 13:58:40] - I think I am pro some socialist policies but I wouldn't label myself as a "socialist" or wanting our overall system to be socialism. Does Bernie even want full socialism? -Daniel.
[2021-07-16 13:57:55] - I think I am pro some socialist policies but I wouldn
[2021-07-16 13:49:53] - mig: I was a little surprised by him calling out socialism, considering how many of his allies are pretty openly socialist. -Paul
[2021-07-16 13:37:00] - mig: The part about socialism or him calling out communism? -Daniel
[2021-07-15 23:34:13] - https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1415787708518043650?s=21 this feels like a bfd. though kind of sad that it would be a bfd. - mig
[2021-07-15 17:46:02] - I more find it amusing that a joke (?) I saw on Twitter is showing up in serious reporting about political wrongdoing. -Paul
[2021-07-15 17:45:26] - a: Uh, I'm interested in it IF any interesting data can be obtained by following Pelosi's trades (which I honestly doubt). I'm not "interested" in it in terms of saying she is doing anything particularly wrong (hence the "I don't buy most of the scary implications here") -Paul
[2021-07-15 17:09:43] - yeah, this was a big story like ~3 days ago. it does seem shady as fuck that anybody in congress is allowed to do this, but i'm pretty sure its something they all do, for better or worse (worse). looking at the stock-trades right before the pandemic announcements was mind-blowing. paul usually you argue *for* insider trading being a good thing, though, so i'm not sure why you're interested in this now that democrats are doing it. ~a
[2021-07-15 17:06:14] - but I will say there are people on Twitter who have tracked some of her investments in lesser known companies (Crowdstrike is an example) and noted her pretty impressive timing and there's a running joke (maybe not a joke to all) about following her since she has inside info. -Paul
[2021-07-15 17:05:32] - https://greenwald.substack.com/p/nancy-and-paul-pelosi-making-millions I don't buy most of the scary implications here (the big tech companies she or her husband trade a lot are the FANG+Microsoft companies that a lot of people invest in)... -Paul
[2021-07-15 16:18:57] - Paul: agreed. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 16:14:06] - I think the problem is that it has been weaponized by both sides to just use it whenever there is anything they don't like. As a result, the side in power starts to work towards getting rid of the filibuster (only to completely hypocritically change tunes once they are out of power again). -Paul
[2021-07-15 16:12:30] - Daniel: I think we come to the same conclusion using similar (but slightly different) reasons. I agree there can be a time and a place for the filibuster and I think its a good thing for there to be a tool where a passionate minority can force a majority to get a larger majority to get something passed. -Paul
[2021-07-15 15:54:21] - Pro democracy is a good principle but I don't know that it is the best principle. So then some other principle could trump it by definition. Or you could think that the democratic process is working to limit democracy for others so then one could still see themselves as pro democracy even while filibustering. /shrug. I thought about that conversation more and decided it was more complicated in my head than originally. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 15:52:15] - a: I think that has to be up to people to determine. Like when a solider is supposed to reject orders. Its not really a good situation. I'm not sure I like the precedent either but I also don't think there is really a better answer since its basically a morality type question and there is only what each person decides based on their conscience. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 15:43:09] - daniel: "sometimes there are things or times where the principle of the matter is more important than respecting the democratic process" i'm not sure i like this precedent because of what it'll mean. i think you're arguing that its ok to ignore democracy when its for the greater good? but who decides what is the greater good? what if i override democracy while *enacting* a ridiculous-law instead of *rejecting* a ridiculous-law? ~a
[2021-07-15 15:31:06] - And if a more realistic example was if you are black you can't vote also being something where we can agree that we should probably be rejecting the democratic process that led to that then again its questions of degree. Where the laws that TX lawmakers aren't that but if you feel they are close enough in principle that they need to break quorum to reject them then I can see where that is coming from. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 15:29:30] - So if we can agree that sometimes there are things or times where the principle of the matter is more important than respecting the democratic process then it becomes a question of what those things / times are? -Daniel
[2021-07-15 15:28:20] - Paul: I guess as a return to the filibuster conversation, I think its inherently undemocratic but then I think the question becomes at what point do competing principles outweigh that? Like as the extreme example if TX lawmakers wanted to pass a law to kill all Daniel's then rejecting that law might be more important than being pro democratic process. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 14:57:05] - a: You are everything that is wrong with American media.
-Paul[2021-07-15 14:52:33] - paul: i'll click on each one twice so it'll cancel out. ~a
[2021-07-15 14:51:56] - Well, joke is on them, because those Trump stories aren't getting any of my clicks.
-Paul[2021-07-15 14:41:05] - paul: "Does that seem concerning to anybody else?" yes. i think now, though, a bunch of news came out about him, so that's not too surprising. he was out of the news most of the winter and spring. i agree with the other stuff you guys have said, though. ~a
[2021-07-15 14:11:18] - But yeah those incentives are basically why Fox News exists (and all cable news essentially?). People started to min max what got viewers / clicks and it wasn't reasoned middle of the road news. Its OUTRAGE and WTF IS THE OTHER PARTY DOING NOW etc. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 14:10:05] - Important? Almost certainly. More likely to get clicks? Maybe not. Which is probably the problem you are referring to. -Daniel
[2021-07-15 14:01:39] - I get that there might be relevant news stories to report on regarding Trump now, but it seems odd that he has effectively been deplatformed from all sorts of outlets, just got walloped in an election, and yet seems to be the main topic for most of the media right now. Is there nothing more important to discuss? -Paul
[2021-07-15 13:59:29] - I've been reading some about how a lot of ratings / subscriptions are down for a lot of mainstream news outlets post-Trump (and that those numbers spiked a lot during Trump's presidency). I'm a little worried about there being some messed up incentives with the media right now in terms of news about Trump helping to boost ratings. -Paul
[2021-07-15 13:57:41] - One thing I've noticed over the past few days on CNN is how often Trump has been the focus of news stories. On a whim, I checked yesterday and his name showed up on the front page one less time than Biden's. Today, Trump is crushing him 8-3. Does that seem concerning to anybody else? -Paul
[2021-07-14 16:42:02] - there's a lot of good stuff in that link, thanks. ~a
[2021-07-14 16:39:53] - daniel: ah, interesting! i hadn't considered that. "ETFs rarely buy or sell stock for cash". ~a
[2021-07-14 16:37:46] - a: https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/etfs/etf-vs-index-fund/ say not really a big tax difference and that ETF's have edge there too. -Daniel
[2021-07-14 16:29:25] - less expense ratio, means you make more money, and have to pay more taxes (j) ~a
[2021-07-14 16:28:21] - daniel: "There might be a tax difference somehow" do you have details on this? i'm in the dark about what tax differences there could be. ~a
[2021-07-14 16:13:49] - daniel: "Availability in 401ks" true. my fidelty 401k will let me buy etfs, but my ascensus 401k won't. i like your points, they are all very true, but seeming pretty minor: if given the choice . . . if there's an option, i feel like i'll always want the etf. ~a
[2021-07-14 16:11:47] - daniel: "commission fees" true, but like you said, outdated. commission fees were always super low though, so not only is this outdated it also seems minor. "Partial shares" true. you can sometimes have partial shares. i have partial shares of some etfs, but i think they only let me buy partial shares when reinvesting dividends? this seems pretty minor too. ~a
[2021-07-14 16:09:37] - Daniel: Yeah, I just found myself going, "Huh?" way too often because so many things made so little sense even just inside the movie itself. So many instances where love and hatred seemed to be way too interchangeable. -Paul
[2021-07-14 16:01:43] - Availability in 401ks? I don't think ETF's are available to most people inside their 401ks. Thats not entirely a fund vs etf thing though more just a 401k management thing. -Daniel
[2021-07-14 16:00:23] - a: Also there used to be mutual funds for more things than ETFs for things? Again that has probably shifted over time so is probably less relevant. -Daniel
[2021-07-14 16:00:13] - Daniel: fuck i forgot the worst one! Frequent trading rules! Most mutual funds won't let you buy a fund if you've sold any shares in the past 30 damn days! Not so for etfs. ~a
[2021-07-14 15:59:18] - a: I think when there used to be commission fees on trades all over the place that was a mark against etf's but those are mostly gone now. Partial shares are probably an answer (the answer?) in that you can always but 200$ bucks of a mutual fund but you have to buy etf's in whole shares (that I'm aware of). There might be a tax difference somehow but I'm not sure? -Daniel
[2021-07-14 15:55:15] - (i did find our previous conversation about this, but it was 2017, and i don't think i phrased the question in this way) ~a
[2021-07-14 15:53:11] - daniel: mutual funds or etfs? bad things about mutual funds: their price only updates once per day, you can only buy or sell them at one time at the very end of the day, their expense ratio is always HIGHER than etfs for the same products. bad things about etfs: *sometimes* there is markup (but it's almost always small and sometimes its negative). why would i ever buy mutual funds if the same etf, with a lower expense ratio exists? ~a
[2021-07-14 15:53:03] - daniel: sorry if we already talked about this, but i don't remember what you said . . . ~a
[2021-07-14 15:50:20] - Paul: I was also disappointed - I hoped for more. I think they made it to crazy for a someone who be more batman? and less superman? If that makes sense. I also laughed at the movie in a bad way more than any other MCU movie I think. -Daniel
[2021-07-14 14:05:36] - Daniel: I saw it. I was disappointed. Way too many unanswered questions and plot points that made no sense. Thought they bizarrely tried to paint certain characters as horrible people and also sympathetic comic relief. -Paul
[2021-07-14 14:03:55] - Daniel: I hope so too, but I suspect we have different opinions on the politicians we're thinking of.
-Paul[2021-07-14 13:50:37] - Who's been able to see Black Widow yet? Anyone have thoughts? -Daniel
[2021-07-14 13:39:54] - a: I hope that at some point people stop voting for the politicians that try to create truly fucked laws. -Daniel
[2021-07-14 02:06:18] - a: Yeah, Tony Todd has played a few roles in Star Trek. He was also "old Jake" in an episode of DS9 and I think a Hirogen in Voyager. -Paul
[2021-07-14 01:35:56] - paul: the actor that says "i don't like soft-ass shit" in the rock (among a few other fun quips) is the same actor that plays worf's brother in tng. ~a
[2021-07-13 21:51:37] - daniel: i guess we just have to hope that the truly fucked laws are rendered unconstitutional. ~a
[2021-07-13 21:50:02] - daniel: agreed. i'm not sure the mental gymnastics required to argue for having fewer people vote, or arguing about making voting harder. but sometimes the ends don't justify the means? filibustering and forcing a non-quorum are fairly petty, and probably borderline illegal/immoral. i think you only resort to that shit when you've truly lost the fight. ~a
[2021-07-13 19:02:26] - I would also say that there are definitely D politicos (as well as all parties) that are also just interested in engineering wins rather than trying to actually represent the people. However I think D's are more open to neutral party district allocation committees / algorithms etc. So not perfect, but in my head better. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 19:02:10] - a: similarly, yes. I don't approve of the running away tactic, regardless of the party. - mig
[2021-07-13 19:01:12] - np. ~double
[2021-07-13 19:00:53] - oof triple!
[2021-07-13 19:00:48] - sorry double~
[2021-07-13 19:00:29] - Paul: re: uncharitable to R's. Most definitely its uncharitable but also I'm not sure its wrong. I don't think R's are interested in accurately representing the will of a .majority of the people. I think they are interested in engineering R's wins. 100% if Dan Patrick could just set the election results of TX he would. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 19:00:23] - Paul: re: uncharitable to R's. Most definitely its uncharitable but also I'm not sure its wrong. I don't think R's are interested in accurately representing the will of a .majority of the people. I think they are interested in engineering R's wins. 100% if Dan Patrick could just set the election results of TX he would. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 19:00:20] - Paul: re: uncharitable to R's. Most definitely its uncharitable but also I'm not sure its wrong. I don't think R's are interested in accurately representing the will of a .majority of the people. I think they are interested in engineering R's wins. 100% if Dan Patrick could just set the election results of TX he would. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 19:00:12] - mig: what about the dozens of other examples from xpovos? were the lawmakers in those other examples shutting everything down? or stunning and brave? ~a
[2021-07-13 18:58:41] - paul: I think the only problem i have with what texas dems are doing is that this is shutting basically everything down (there were other items on the agenda aside from the voting bill), while filibustering a single bill in the senate just makes that bill not pass. - mig
[2021-07-13 18:57:10] - Paul: I support the goals this "filibuster" is working to accomplish but I think any filibuster is inherently undemocratic cause yeah its whole point is to block the majority. I don't know that I would say I support quorum busting / filibuster in general though. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 18:13:15] - https://twitter.com/DavidGFool/status/1415008064617467908 Apparently David Gardner from The Motley Fool is interviewing an NFL head coach who is a member of TMF for his podcast. Any theories as to who it is? My guess is Riverboat Ron. -Paul
[2021-07-13 17:16:20] - In general, I find filibuster stuff to be anti-democratic, but I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing since I think it's often important to have measures where a significant minority voice can protect itself from the will of the majority. -Paul
[2021-07-13 17:05:53] - Also, to be clear, I don't know if I have any kind of position on what the Democrats are doing. Don't know enough about Texas law or even the the legislation they are trying to stop (strangely, no article I've found yet is even discussing what the legislation does). -Paul
[2021-07-13 16:58:46] - Xpovos: I thought Taft was "Mr. Republican". It doesn't surprise me at all to learn that Lincoln might have partaken in anti-democratic (little d) activities. -Paul
[2021-07-13 16:57:27] - Paul: More examples. https://ballotpedia.org/Noteworthy_state_legislative_walkouts -- Xpovos
[2021-07-13 16:56:51] - That this is the 2nd time they've engaged in the span of a few weeks, makes me wonder if they really are just using this as a paid vacation than to try and do something meaningful. - mig
[2021-07-13 16:55:42] - Paul: Quorum busting isn't new and has been used by many times before, including by Republicans already. Here's a fun news article about Lincoln himself, Mr. Republican, attempting it, and a more recent case. https://www.historynet.com/quorum-busters.htm -- Xpovos
[2021-07-13 16:54:16] - it is a bit silly to engage in a filibuster tactic to go to dc and then demand the senate nukes the filibuster. screams of "it's only ok when we do it". - mig
[2021-07-13 16:48:35] - Daniel: Also, is it fair to say that your response boils down to: Since it's Democrats doing it I support it but if Republicans do it in the future I will think it's wrong. -Paul
[2021-07-13 16:47:42] - Daniel: "I think R's would literally change the rules to only one voter gets to vote in the whole state as long as that one voter is the head of the republican party if they could" You don't think that's being a tiny bit uncharitable? Not to mention a bit hyperbolic in response to this specific situation? -Paul
[2021-07-13 16:39:26] - paul: i agree with miguel. ~a
[2021-07-13 16:39:08] - paul: tx dems are stunning and brave. - mig
[2021-07-13 15:11:09] - like a weird equivalent* to a filibuster. So its probably not an effective tool for enacting the will of the people? However given that I think R's would literally change the rules to only one voter gets to vote in the whole state as long as that one voter is the head of the republican party if they could I probably support it in this particular case? But I can easily imagine a future where I wouldn't. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 15:09:01] - Paul: /shrug - seems like a weird filibuster. I imagine at some point R's will do it too if they ever lose the majority here in TX. -Daniel
[2021-07-13 14:51:56] - Any thoughts on Texas democrats fleeing the state so legislation can't get passed because of a lack of quorum? -Paul
[2021-07-13 14:41:50] - a: Yeah, I think it means they are a fiduciary and don't get compensated for selling you certain products. But I am not sure about that. -Paul
[2021-07-13 14:41:18] - a: https://craftworkcapitalllc.com/solutions/financial-planning/ I know the two founders of this place and I think they're good, smart people and I was looking at maybe talking to them. -Paul
[2021-07-13 14:36:58] - paul: i guess i'm kinda wrong though? i think "fee only" does include "aum" as a subset. i think (now) that fee only means that they don't (often?) hide how they get their money? ~a
[2021-07-13 14:36:47] - a: Okay, maybe I was right the first time (I thought I was). I looked up a "fee only" financial planner and in the fine print it mentioned AUM so I thought maybe I was wrong. -Paul
[2021-07-13 14:35:15] - paul: yes, and i'm in the same boat. i agree with what you have said. i spend a lot of time looking at all of the angles, but i'm not arrogant: i know i have blind-spots. i think "fee only" is what we want though, you said it was not? they sometimes mention "management of assets", which is just like, an option; its not all they do. ~a
[2021-07-13 14:29:50] - a: I think the tough thing (for me), is that I don't want the "high margin" services they offer like managing my investments. I just want somebody to tell me how to be less of an idiot about taxes and maybe be a second set of eyes to make sure I'm not blind to something obvious I should be doing. -Paul
[2021-07-13 14:25:04] - i also don't want aum. my parents pay 1% of aum, and that just seems crazy to me. i'm sure its worth it to them if they think that they get back that 1%, but i'm not sure i could convince myself that is what they get. ~a
[2021-07-13 14:23:43] - fee only is what you want, i think. i dunno though, i've never hired a retirement planner. (i'll probably be hiring one for the same reason as you, before the end of 2021). ~a
[2021-07-13 14:22:36] - Wait, "fee only" I guess isn't what I meant. I don't want any AUM. Can't I just pay somebody like $200 to tell me where my retirement plan is out of whack and/or how to reduce my taxes? -Paul
[2021-07-13 14:09:23] - a: Sounds about right. -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:59:18] - paul: haha, i'm looking through the logs, and in 2018 you had a hard-on for socialism. ~a
[2021-07-13 13:57:26] - paul: i might. ~a
[2021-07-13 13:56:58] - a: You might say I have a hard-on for Cialis? -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:55:18] - paul: yep. that's the year i wish i had opened a daf. ~a
[2021-07-13 13:54:25] - paul: you can try to post it now. it was because you wanted so hard to talk about cialis. and fucking spammers love cialis (tax specialist
) ~a[2021-07-13 13:53:41] - a: "i often owe 5-6 digits at tax-time" You've owed 6 digits!? -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:53:14] - a: So, I had my solar tax credit last year which I think is a large reason we got a refund. This year, I expect to sell a fair amount of stock outside of a retirement account which I expect will lead to us owing a fair bit. -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:51:54] - paul: i assume its the same as for stocks, but that's just an assumption. the only time i exercised an option, it was a stock option grant through my employer, and the taxes were withheld. ~a
[2021-07-13 13:51:13] - Daniel: "You need to find an accountant" Yeah, I do sometimes wonder if I should try to find a fee-only (I think that's the term?) CPA or something which could help me out with some stuff. -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:51:02] - paul: yeah, sometimes it eats messages, sorry. can you sms or IM me the message so i can look at it? ~a
[2021-07-13 13:50:41] - Oh, nevermind. It just wanted to eat my message. -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:50:32] - I'm a spammer?
-Paul[2021-07-13 13:48:36] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/13/virginia-is-back-as-americas-top-state-for-business.html Suck it, Texas (and any other states represented by people who frequent the message board). -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:47:53] - paul: penalties are SO small though, i do worry about penalties but that's because i often owe 5-6 digits at tax-time, and i've heard through the grapevine that if your penalties are too high, the government forces you to change your withholding. ~a
[2021-07-13 13:46:35] - paul: we can't know that for sure without knowing a bit more. to avoid the penalty you must pay the lesser of 110% of last year's tax or 100% of this year's tax. so, if you had a refund last year, you're very likely ok, but we can't know that for sure. ~a
[2021-07-13 13:44:10] - Paul: You need to find an accountant
-Daniel[2021-07-13 13:43:26] - Also, anybody know how taxes on options work? I assume it's similar to stocks and capital gains rates for long term and income rates for short term? -Paul
[2021-07-13 13:42:53] - Does anybody know if you can get penalized for owing too much to the IRS at tax time if you got a refund last year? -Paul
[2021-07-12 21:08:47] - gotcha yeah ok, i know about commonstock. ~a
[2021-07-12 21:08:31] - a: Somebody from Commonstock (that social network for investors I probably mentioned before). -Paul
[2021-07-12 19:31:30] - talia is beating henri! hey, who is henri? i always notice his name because he's been in #1st place for the most number of days, probably. ~a
[2021-07-12 18:01:14] - paul: 1.6 tonnes. always metric, all the time. my most recent change is trying to measure my tire-pressures in bars. ~a
[2021-07-12 17:37:36] - a: Well, it's literally almost 2 tons, right?
It looks like you can even get non-pop-up trailers under that amount. -Paul[2021-07-12 17:06:08] - paul: "which isn't a ton" literally?
i think most popups are less than 3500 lbs. sounds like the average popup is 2000 lbs. and my motorcycle trailer is 120 lbs! ~a[2021-07-12 16:39:14] - mig: Same here, although I don't like making too many assumptions based on that so I am wondering if I should try reading it so I know what her argument is. -Paul
[2021-07-12 16:38:25] - Daniel: A Honda Odyssey (which we already own) can apparently tow 3,500 lbs, which isn't a ton, but seems to be enough for a smaller trailer. Of course, we don't have a trailer hitch right now. -Paul
[2021-07-12 15:40:41] - Also definitely not an expert though and could be wildly wrong based on the sample size of that expo. -Daniel
[2021-07-12 15:40:08] - a: yeah motorhome / motorcoach vs trailer was what I meant. From my one experience going to the expo for fun it looked like it was cheaper to get a trailer type rv + nice truck than motor coach style. Maybe that doesn't work as well for a family though? But for a couple would work I think. -Daniel
[2021-07-12 14:55:16] - maybe a van is actually more expensive? i dunno. ~a
[2021-07-12 14:54:36] - daniel: "self driving". what does self driving mean in this context? is that like the difference between a "motorcoach" vs a trailer? links. if you guys saw nomadland, i feel like all of them just lived in vans . . . i know a few of the scenes from that movie were real people. you guys should see nomadland, its an ok movie on a similar subject. i'd probably just buy a van. ~a
[2021-07-12 14:48:08] - daniel: same question, if andrea discussed it with you. ~a
[2021-07-12 14:47:33] - mig: what's in it? ~a
[2021-07-12 14:40:57] - paul: i haven't though I've read enough statements from the author of white fragility to get at least a good sense of what's in it. - mig
[2021-07-12 13:33:14] - Andrea read White Fragility. She said it was good / interesting. -Daniel
[2021-07-12 13:17:19] - a: Nope. -Paul
[2021-07-11 23:35:01] - not I. Have you? ~a
[2021-07-11 19:18:45] - Random question: Has anybody here read any books like "How to be an Anti-Racist" or "White Fragility"? -Paul
[2021-07-09 22:14:52] - https://www.motortrend.com/features/15-of-the-best-towing-vehicles-that-arent-trucks/ . . . SUVs can often tow a lot. I put a dirt bike behind my corolla super often. I probably would rather just sleep in a tent or a cabin. I don't have a lot of experience with the rest, but they just seem like a lot of work. ~a
[2021-07-09 18:54:23] - Paul: Hard to be fuel efficient and able to tow an additional 10k pounds. And people do love their fuel efficiency. -Daniel
[2021-07-09 18:19:00] - Daniel: Yeah, I am a little disappointed that the Odyssey (and Teslas) don't seem to be able to tow more than like 3,500 pounds, which limits what could be towed. Seems like a pick-up is required for anything sizeable. -Paul
[2021-07-09 16:33:33] - Paul: We went to an RV expo here in San Antonio the year before the pandemic. It was fun to just walk around look at all the craziness. I think Andrea's dad recommended not getting a self driving kind cause they just made things more complex. He said a nice pickup and a good towing RV was better / easier. -Daniel
[2021-07-09 14:55:12] - Anybody here have any insight into RVs? I've been (mostly un-seriously) researching them and it seems like there is a lot to learn. -Paul
[2021-07-09 14:41:51] - ha yeah. ~a
[2021-07-09 14:41:14] - a: I guess it ultimately worked, although I wish it had worked more immediately.
-Paul[2021-07-09 14:40:29] - a: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that what it was. In fact, before I read that exchange I "remembered" it as being you just straight up giving me some bitcoin. -Paul
[2021-07-09 14:21:59] - i feel like I made that bet in 2013 (and then i just sent you $1 in 2015) to get you interested in bitcoin. did it work? ~a
[2021-07-09 14:11:26] - it's fun that one of those transactions had 0 fees and the other had about $.005 in fees. those were the days. ~a
[2021-07-09 14:04:41] - haha that sounds about right. ~a
[2021-07-09 14:01:42] - a: "Lets bet on next week! 0.1 bitcoin! I don't care which side I bet on. But we'll bet on whether the game will happen next week or not. Which side do you want to bet on?" -Paul
[2021-07-09 14:01:14] - a: You can check the email exchange. It was an email from you to me on Fri, Jan 4, 2013, 6:04 PM. I am also a little confused looking back on it. -Paul
[2021-07-09 13:44:36] - here is the address if you want to see more info about it ~a
[2021-07-09 13:44:05] - paul: haha yes i do remember that. what i don't remember is what "whether or not an ultimate frisbee game would happen" means? we bet on whether we would have a game? but, yeah my notes say i sent you ~$1, and you sold it back for $16ish only a few months later, so that's a nice 1000% profit in like 3 months. that's ~1300000% per year
~a[2021-07-08 20:54:13] - Daniel: If you measure a bet in 2013 by value of the underlying asset in 2021 prices... then almost certainly.
-Paul[2021-07-08 20:51:32] - Paul: Does that make it your biggest USD bet then? -Daniel
[2021-07-08 20:32:18] - a: On a lark, I searched my email for "bitcoin" and found a chat exchange between us where we bet 0.1 btc on whether or not an ultimate frisbee game would happen back in 2013. Later discussions lead me to believe I sold that back to you at some point. D'oh! -Paul
[2021-07-06 22:13:42] - paul: uhhh as long as it's only 2x, you might be fine. obviously less is better, but it could be much worse than 2x.
~a[2021-07-06 22:11:46] - paul: there are a lot of people to beat. I probably have way less than a 50% chance of finishing in first at this point. ~a
[2021-07-06 13:39:06] - a: "try to keep your taxable income consistent" We have been absolutely horrible at this, although I don't think it's really our fault. There have been years where our income was probably literally twice what it was in previous years. -Paul
[2021-07-06 13:38:17] - a: "by just playing the numbers" What do you mean by this? What numbers are you playing? Also, congrats! There's a long way to go, but it's looking good for you (and Daniel) this year. -Paul
[2021-07-05 15:05:02] - paul: first place! by just playing the numbers, i assume this will go away before december 31st. but it is nice i got the whole long-weekend to bask in my glory. ~a
[2021-07-03 20:07:39] - paul: my point is that roads *can* get better for vulnerable road users. when there are times where we have to decide between the convenience and safety of vulnerable road users vs the convenience of car drivers, i think we should all try to focus on the former. there are places near cities where this has started and i think that is a good thing. we should decenter car driving wherever possible. ~a
[2021-07-03 20:03:41] - paul: the recommendation i once got from a cpa was a bit of a generalized concept: try to keep your taxable income consistent. if you can do things to keep your taxable income consistent between years (without losing or spending any money) then that is good for you. ~a
[2021-07-03 20:02:19] - a: Got it, thanks! I've got some homework to do... -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:58:50] - donor advised fund. vanguard donor advised fund. i've never done this, but i probably should have done it in 2017. ~a
[2021-07-03 19:57:37] - a: (B2) I'm not sure what DAF means in this context? -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:56:28] - a: (A4) Unfortunately, not really expecting any bonuses this year. -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:55:22] - Sorry, arguing against it. -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:55:18] - no, i'm not arguing that. i don't think i ever said anything close to that. ~a
[2021-07-03 19:55:15] - a: Yeah, and it seemed like you and Daniel were arguing it. -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:54:58] - a: Okay, so are you trying to argue that most roads are designed primarily for bikes? Because otherwise I don't know if I get your point.
-Paul[2021-07-03 19:54:43] - paul: "the vast majority of roads in this country have been created for, and mostly used by, cars" i agree with you on this. was this your point? ~a
[2021-07-03 19:54:15] - a: (A2) I could somewhat control some capital gain events until next year, but I kinda dislike having investing decisions be dictated by taxes so ideally I would find other options. (A3) I have no control over payroll. I'm guessing my company wouldn't be super excited about delaying paying me for the rest of the year and paying me double for half the year next year. -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:52:00] - paul: "25 mph seems higher than the average person can bike" and? intermediate bikers can go over 15mph: the speed limit is supposed to be a maximum, not a minimum. sure, the speed limit on constitution is 25mph, but most roads in dc have a speed limit of 20mph. ~a
[2021-07-03 19:51:59] - a: Thanks for the comprehensive RSU thing. Let me see if I can discuss some of the options out loud so you can tell me where I might be wrong: (A1) So, I feel a bit stupid, but I can contribute $6k to a traditional IRA every year on top of maxing out 401(k) contributions? I haven't been doing this and it looks like I very much should have been some years. -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:47:51] - a: I mean, even those city roads have lanes the size of cars (not bikes), and speed limits more appropriate for cars (even 25 mph seems higher than the average person can bike). -Paul
[2021-07-03 19:46:17] - a: "i'm not sure your point though" Hah, I was thinking the same thing about some of your comments. I don't doubt some modifications to Constitution Ave or other city streets have been made to make it easier for cyclists. But I still think it's pretty clearly obvious that the vast majority of roads in this country have been created for, and mostly used by, cars. -Paul
[2021-07-02 17:46:21] - paul: you might consider talking to a tax professional if it ends up being, like 10k or more. it might be worth your time+money if you do. ~a
[2021-07-02 17:45:29] - paul: its a bit late, but if you had bought the RSUs in a tax-shelter, you'd likely be super happy you had. its why i like to buy most of my volatile stuff in tax-shelters. ~a
[2021-07-02 17:45:25] - paul: also, regarding A#2, this one is kinda meta: but, if you can sell some of the RSUs in a different year, at the same gain, this is huge for you. ~a
[2021-07-02 17:42:31] - also for what its worth, i'm not a tax expert so some (most) of these have rules you have to follow. ~a
[2021-07-02 17:17:06] - aw man, i have two #3s in one of my messages, sorry
~a[2021-07-02 17:13:34] - paul: 9. some companies will let you buy-later-pay-now, my accountant allows this. but that won't work unless its deductible (which probably means it needs to be coming from a company, unless its already covered by other options i've already mentioned) ~a
[2021-07-02 17:12:47] - paul: for #B: the ones i know about are: 1. sell anything at a loss (doesn't have to be stock) 2. DAF if you're talking about, ~25k+ 3. donations, in general 3. spend money on anything deductable, like home-office stuff or 4. eco-improvements to your house 5. business expense (start a company) 6. self-employment 7. school 8. new mortgage with more interest ~a
[2021-07-02 17:12:31] - paul: for #A: the ones i know about are: 1. contribute to a non-roth (traditional) retirement or hsa thing. 2. foregoing a capital gains event until next year (wait to sell something until 2022), 3. if you have any control over payroll there are a lot of things you can probably do, but i don't know what the law allows 4. ask bonus givers to give you bonuses in 2022 instead of 2021. ~a
[2021-07-02 17:12:28] - paul: i missed your RSU message. yes, there are a lot of things you can do. summary: A. decrease your income (and/or push incomes to future years), B. increase your expenses/deductions (and/or you can push expenses to this year). ~a
[2021-07-02 14:21:57] - paul: constitution ave doesn't have bike lanes. in your picture, the guy on a bike is on a sidewalk. that's not a multi-use path, or a cycleway, or bike-lane (bikes on sidewalks in cbd is disallowed: but that might be nps land, i'm not sure). i'm not sure your point though, sorry. is it that constitution ave is designed with cars in mind? if so, i would have expected a greater-than-25 mph speed limit, do you agree? ~a
[2021-07-02 03:41:07] - a: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8920415,-77.0418867,3a,75y,142.21h,82.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snqOj4tMtC-Ddt-jK0Zc5IQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Doesn't Constitution Ave have divided bike lanes? When I look at street view I see bikes on what look like side walks but not on the road. -Paul
[2021-07-01 18:57:45] - paul: "Constitution Avenue". perfect example. i bike on constitution avenue often. and you're right, that the speed limit of constitution avenue is 40 mph. wait, no, that was a trick! would you believe its actually 25 mph. end-to-end: 25 mph! its also not a one-lane-road. so if i'm riding in the right lane (which i always do on constitution unless there's REALLY heavy traffic, or unless i want to make a left-turn) you can pass. ~a
[2021-07-01 18:09:41] - a: That's fair, I guess downtown intersections would be geared a lot towards pedestrians. And as somebody who drove to a Nationals game recently, I can say confidently it was NOT geared at all towards cars. But I feel like Constitution Avenue is a different beast and also counts as a city road. -Paul
[2021-07-01 18:06:40] - paul: many roads in major cities are "closed to cars". this is popular in europe, but i think its something that will bleed into the united states eventually ("beach road" is an evidence of this happening in dc) ~a
[2021-07-01 18:05:56] - paul: "Even in those cases, though, I don't think things like stop lights and speed limits are geared towards bikes". i don't agree with this. stop lights and speed limits in most roads in downtown dc are def geared towards pedestrians and people on bikes. "Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)" and "advanced stop line (ASL)" and speed limits on most roads are evidence that dc at least is trying to focus roads on non-cars on most roads. ~a
[2021-07-01 18:00:23] - Hey, not to change the subject, but I have a random tax question: I have some shares (RSUs?) of a private company that I expect to sell this year for a fairly significant gain. Is there anything I can do to mitigate what will likely be a big tax hit? Is the only thing I can do is to hold until my income is lower and try to sell then? -Paul
[2021-07-01 17:58:21] - Daniel: Also, agreed on city roads being a different beast, but I think city roads are probably still the minority? Suburban roads and highways and other roads still seem to be mostly car focused with maybe the occasional bike lane thrown in. Even in those cases, though, I don't think things like stop lights and speed limits are geared towards bikes. -Paul
[2021-07-01 17:56:59] - Daniel: "I'm generally worried about them suddenly falling over or something and me hitting them on accident" Same here. I have this same horrible vision of them suddenly and inexplicably falling over as I pass them and me running them over, so whenever possible, I try to give them a ton of room. -Paul
[2021-07-01 17:56:00] - a: If there's enough demand for it and it's cost effective, then sure, I'm fine with the government doing it. I'm just not going to advocate for it. -Paul
[2021-07-01 17:54:51] - a: "well then we want the same thing" Eh, I don't know if I WANT that. I just think it's a better solution than mixing bikes and cars on roads designed for, and primarily used by, cars. -Paul
[2021-07-01 17:25:57] - Back to the original discussion I don't often switch lanes entirely when going around bikers but I will often 'drift' over into the other lane (even over double yellow) if there is no other traffic. I'm generally worried about them suddenly falling over or something and me hitting them on accident. Which probably isn't rational but is my fear driving by them. -Daniel
[2021-07-01 17:24:03] - paul: depends on the road and I would still say that cars are the primary use case for roads still but 'exclusively designed for cars' still seemed like a strong statement. Highways / freeways yes. Roads in DC with the set off bike lanes and stuff, no. Bike lanes are becoming more and more common here in SA and I've seen at least one spot where there is a stop light here just for bikes. -Daniel
[2021-07-01 17:20:23] - paul: well then we want the same thing. success! i also want this. ~a
[2021-07-01 17:12:19] - a: "so, what is your proposal?" Lanes exclusively for bikes (or maybe for skateboarders / rollerbladers / etc too) that are separated from car lanes by some divider? That's obviously a big ask, though, so I wouldn't expect a lot of places to do it. -Paul
[2021-07-01 17:10:02] - Daniel: "seems less and less true" I probably agree with this, but what percent would you say right now are roads designed for cars? 70%? 80%? I mean, the lanes are car widths, the speed limits are for cars. I get that we're doing more things like adding bike lanes but it still seems like the vast majority of road usage is by cars. -Paul
[2021-07-01 14:28:52] - paul: you don't think "the best idea is to mix them up more". so, what is your proposal? i agree that its dangerous to mix everybody together, but save eliminating all bikes and pedestrians from all roads, i'm not sure what you're proposing. ~a
[2021-07-01 14:21:14] - agreed, daniel. i was thinking the same thing. car drivers have slowly returned to be but one road user. it doesn't need to be my debate. a debate is improved by a third, different, voice. otherwise it becomes paul's and my intransigent positions
i'm sure, daniel, i've said some stupid bike shit that you disagree with! i feel like last night, you were signaling that paul was being (too?) generous in discussing bike stuff with me. ~a[2021-07-01 14:07:13] - This is more Adrians debate but "roads today are pretty much exclusively designed for cars" seems less and less true. I think there was a period it was probably mostly true but that does seem to be changing even down here in TX. -Daniel
[2021-07-01 13:31:26] - a: I mean, maybe my sticking point is this idea that mixing cars and cyclists is somehow safer, but I just find it hard to square what you keep telling me about cyclists getting killed by cars and how dangerous it is to bike around cars and think that the best idea is to mix them up more. -Paul
[2021-07-01 13:29:54] - a: I understand what you're saying about roads and "centering" cars and whatnot, but roads today are pretty much exclusively designed for cars. I mean, I don't think babies belong in bars either because it seems dangerous but I wouldn't try to make the argument that it's dangerous for everybody and if we only put daycares in bars and stopped decentering babies for their safety we would all be better off. -Paul
[2021-06-30 19:43:09] - paul: for instance, if i said "cars on the road are dangerous because the people in the cars might get hurt" and "most of my concern about people in cars in the road has to do with them getting hurt". i mean, yeah, we'd all like fewer people in cars to die, but you wouldn't ask all cars off the road, right? why do you want to decenter cyclists for their safety, but not cars for their safety? ~a
[2021-06-30 19:43:08] - paul: "because the cyclists themselves might get hurt" i know that's what you mean, i appreciate your viewpoint is a somewhat moderate one. but only somewhat moderate, and moderate only on the surface. ~a
[2021-06-30 19:14:44] - a: "people on foot and people on bikes kill ~0 people per year in road incidents" Sorry, I meant that cyclists in the road are dangerous because the cyclists themselves might get hurt. I know you might not believe me, but most of my concern about cyclists in the road has to do with them getting hurt. Like you said, I'm not overly worried they are going to kill me in my car. -Paul
[2021-06-30 19:02:00] - daniel: major yikes since Eric Adams has already made accusations of foul play over the results. - mig
[2021-06-30 19:00:55] - mig: Oops indeed. I"m glad in my life I've never worked on something so high profile that people would tweet about the bugs I made! Yikes though. -Daniel
[2021-06-30 18:45:05] - paul: "the more in the lane cyclists are, the safer it is?" that's correct. take the lane is what they say. "That's counter-intuitive me to, but I can believe it" yes, it was a surprise to me, as well. ~a
[2021-06-30 18:44:20] - paul: "You assume these drivers are just angry" no! that is not what i assume. i assume about 1 in 30 of them are "just angry" based on how they treat me when i'm on the road. "I assume cyclists in the road are dangerous" i don't have to assume that cars on the road are dangerous. people on foot and people on bikes kill ~0 people per year in road incidents. cars on the road kill ~1.4m people per year. that's 4000 people per day. ~a
[2021-06-30 18:43:10] - https://twitter.com/BOENYC/status/1410064145064599554/photo/1 oops. - mig
[2021-06-30 18:39:43] - a: "the data says quite the opposite" So, to be clear, the data basically says that the more in the lane cyclists are, the safer it is? That's counter-intuitive me to, but I can believe it. -Paul
[2021-06-30 18:38:30] - a: I guess we're both bringing out biases here? You assume these drivers are just angry at cyclists and want them off the road, and I assume cyclists in the road are dangerous. -Paul
[2021-06-30 18:37:48] - a: "is it on social media?" Nope, it was in-person. As for the tweets, you don't think head on collisions on blind curves is dangerous? Also, why else would it not be a "very good idea to have bicycles in a vehicle travel lane" except for the danger? -Paul
[2021-06-30 18:30:29] - paul: mostly "cars will be decentered", not "dangerous for everybody". who did you discuss it with? is it on social media? can i read your discussion? ~a
[2021-06-30 18:29:28] - paul: "on the V-DOT tweet and discussing the change with others" the general consensus could not have possibly been interpreted as "this is a bad idea that will be more dangerous for everybody". i see "can you ... enforce traffic lights and stop signs for cyclists?" and "... there seems to be an opportunity for head on collisions on blind curves or massive backups" or "Not a very good idea to have bicycles in a vehicle travel lane"? ~a
[2021-06-30 18:10:09] - paul: "Doesn't it stand to reason that putting more of them (cyclists) further into lanes might be dangerous?" actually, no. no, the data says quite the opposite. the newest recommendation from the experts is to "take the lane" (assuming its legal). if you spend time on the edge of the lane, car drivers will hate you less, and honk at you less, but they'll also (accidentally) kill you more. this is what the numbers have told us. ~a
[2021-06-30 18:09:29] - paul: sorry, if that sounds uncharitable. it wasn't meant as so. did you miss where i said "vocal minority"? ~a
[2021-06-30 17:48:59] - a: Yeesh, that seems like an aggressively uncharitable interpretation of things. I mean, you're always going on and on about how dangerous cars are to cyclists. Doesn't it stand to reason that putting more of them (cyclists) further into lanes might be dangerous? -Paul
[2021-06-30 17:44:28] - paul: hopefully the administrations and law-enforcement will interpret "this is a bad idea that will be more dangerous for everybody" as "a vocal minority of people in cars are bad-tempered when they have to share the roadway with literally anybody not in a car. they will come up with any bs when it looks like cars are going to be decentered" ~a
[2021-06-30 17:33:37] - a: "being literally outside the lane is different than being inside the lane" Sure? Although, to your earlier point, does it matter? Oddly enough, a lot of the responses I've seen (on the V-DOT tweet and discussing the change with others) has been: "this is a bad idea that will be more dangerous for everybody". -Paul
[2021-06-30 16:49:24] - anyways, being literally outside the lane is different than being inside the lane, yah? ~a
[2021-06-30 16:48:28] - paul: i guess it doesn't matter anymore? if they're * in * the lane, you're now required to change lanes, as if they were a car (though unlike a car, you can still do it if there's a double-yellow). i'm excited by this change, i hope people actually do it. ~a
[2021-06-30 16:40:39] - a: I guess? I still am not sure I understand the difference. What is "slightly right-of-center"? Does that mean they are in the lane, but near the border? -Paul
[2021-06-30 15:12:09] - paul: yeah i understand what you mean. its why i changed my text to "marked shoulder" in one place, i wish i had done it in both places. being literally outside the lane is different than being slightly right-of-center, you agree with that? ~a
[2021-06-30 13:04:15] - a: "do you mean "to the right" and not a shoulder?" Maybe? I didn't know "shoulder" was a technical thing. I thought it just referred to the area between the lane and the end of the road that is still paved. -Paul
[2021-06-30 13:03:22] - a: "maybe you confuse a bike lane with a shoulder?" Very likely. I don't think my brain really processes bike lanes as being different from shoulders. To me, they are both just areas I don't drive on. -Paul
[2021-06-29 19:21:51] - you can see where, near you, i ride a lot. it takes like ~10 seconds for the page to finish loading, give it some time. ~a
[2021-06-29 19:09:04] - paul: but again, there's no marked shoulder there. ~a
[2021-06-29 19:08:26] - paul: i don't ride on that part of west ox ever, sorry. i rode on one part of it for like a second, and noped away as quick as i could. i don't like it, the cars go too fast there and there's no room for the adrian. ~a
[2021-06-29 19:06:27] - paul: "the area I live in is complicated"
i actually know the three roads you're talking about well. that part of lawyers has a bike lane now, so i'm not sure what you mean by "shoulder". maybe you confuse a bike lane with a shoulder? or are you thinking back to when they didn't have a bike lane? some of glade has a bike lane now too, but no, there's no marked shoulder on that road. do you mean "to the right" and not a shoulder? ~a[2021-06-29 19:00:55] - paul: "changed the law to require lights on if your windshield wipers are on" that was a change? when? i've always remembered that being a thing like from when we learned to drive, but maybe i'm crazy. ~a
[2021-06-29 18:56:54] - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on-display-on-display-i-eventually For reference. -Paul
[2021-06-29 18:55:24] - a: I'm reminded of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with the notice about bulldozing Earth that was placed somewhere no earthling had access to.... or whatever (it's been a long time). -Paul
[2021-06-29 18:54:33] - a: "how do they every communicate law changes to people?" Badly? I've thought about this (and been annoyed by it) ever since they changed the law to require lights on if your windshield wipers are on. Like, how are people supposed to find out about these things? It seems wild that we can change the law in significant ways and NOT have a great system for informing people. -Paul
[2021-06-29 18:53:12] - a: Glade, West Ox (the part that runs between 286 and the other part of West Ox), Lawyers (the part East of... uh... the other part of Lawyers... the area I live in is complicated). -Paul
[2021-06-29 18:16:51] - paul: "I wonder what the plan is to communicate the changes to people" how do they every communicate law changes to people? twitter and facebook? (its not just twitter. and its not just vdot. fairfax county police, for instance, put something up on twitter and facebook). probably those LED road-signs? probably change the test for new drivers? honestly though, what would you propose they do? superbowl ad? ~a
[2021-06-29 18:14:48] - paul: what about a 1-lane road? ~a
[2021-06-29 18:08:56] - a: "can you give some specific examples of roads where you notice a lot of people riding on the shoulder in your area?" Nope! And not because I'm being obstinate. I legit can't even remember specific circumstances where I recall driving past a cyclist on a two lane road. I know it has happened, but can't remember when or where. -Paul
[2021-06-29 18:08:05] - a: Right, I wonder what the plan is to communicate the changes to people. Not sure if many people are watching the V-DOT twitter for the newest guidance when passing cyclists on the road. -Paul
prev <-> next