prev <-> next
[2021-08-03 15:02:18] - paul: yes. ~a
[2021-08-03 14:59:12] - a: Sure, but we're also talking Wisconsin vs Washington DC (one of the most expensive places to live in the country). You think the average salary of a department of education employee is under $100k? -Paul
[2021-08-03 14:26:57] - paul: why? you're looking at 6 people that were *not* randomly sampled. that doesn't tell us anything about the distribution of salaries of the other 4k. you need to go back to stats class paul. these guys shouldn't be on the federal payroll, but if you're looking for no-value-added then i feel like a state superintendent and his assistants aren't going to help you. ~a
[2021-08-03 14:23:17] - a: "the division of DPI Superintendent Tony Evers employs 5.65 FTEs on the federal payroll, at a total cost of $651,100." And this line makes me think my $50k estimate was probably 50% off what it should be.... if not more. -Paul
[2021-08-03 14:22:29] - paul: agreed. 3% is pretty high considering what they're doing with it and the huge amounts of money they deal in. ~a
[2021-08-03 14:21:10] - a: Also, it's not just skim on the federal side. I found this while doing some digging: https://www.badgerinstitute.org/Commentary/The-bureaucratic-skim-of-federal-school-funding.htm -Paul
[2021-08-03 14:20:50] - a: I would be surprised if that was that small, but even still, that's 3% that we probably don't need taken out, right? It's like, give me $100 and I'll give you $97 to spend on groceries. -Paul
[2021-08-03 14:10:57] - paul: 3% of the doed buget for 2019 was spent on "Program Administration/Administration of Credit Programs".
i think that's close to your definition of "cut", and is considerably higher than i thought it would be. ~a[2021-08-03 14:05:27] - paul: shut down the us department of education, and you'll likely do harm to the students of our country. of course knowing if that harm is worth the 50k * 4k salaries is hard to measure. ~a
[2021-08-03 14:02:54] - paul: that assumes that 0% of the salaried employees have value-added. ~a
[2021-08-03 14:02:31] - a: How about this, though: They apparently have 3,912 employees. Even at a really conservative $50k salary, that's around $200 million in salaries alone. -Paul
[2021-08-03 14:01:35] - paul: i'm glad i looked at your link. ha, no. 9% is not the cut. 9% is other. my guess is that the "cut" is hidden in each of those pie slices, and is hopefully considerably lower than 9%. if it's higher than 9% i'll eat my hat, also i'll be on your side. ~a
[2021-08-03 14:01:29] - Although the math doesn't add up. That spending is significantly greater than its budget. -Paul
[2021-08-03 14:00:05] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education 9%? I have to admit, that's a lot lower than I expected. -Paul
[2021-08-03 13:59:09] - a: "do you have some idea what the cut is?" Nope! I might try looking it up later. I imagine we could look at the total amount of grants given out and subtract it from the department's budget. -Paul
[2021-08-03 13:57:36] - something something normal tourist visit ~a
[2021-08-03 13:53:53] - paul: ah you said: taking money from the states ... and then sending it back. maybe a technicality, but they aren't taking any money from the states or giving it back to the states? i guess its that they're taking money from the people, and then giving it back to the people? i guess it does seem a bit inefficient. do you have some idea what the cut is? ~a
[2021-08-03 13:52:25] - paul: somewhere between 1% and 10% of all of the cases are breakthrough, so its actually somewhat common. otoh, there aren't that many senators
~a[2021-08-03 13:51:29] - a: "fuck me lindsey graham just got a breakthrough covid?" Even realizing it's a "man bites dog" story that the media would probably be all over, I'm really surprised by all the cases of breakthrough COVID I keep hearing about considering I thought the odds were still super low. -Paul
[2021-08-03 13:50:35] - a: Yes, I meant money. Sorry. "80% of the DoEd's budget is grants and loans for education" Doesn't that back up what I said? The department of education is taking money from people so they can.... give it back to them to spend on education. -Paul
[2021-08-03 13:19:05] - mig: it was you this time. if you had said that things are much better than they were under trump's zero-tolerance policy, but that the media needs to stop ignoring this growing injustice perpetrated by biden, i probably would have just agreed. you brought up the republican president, not me. ~a
[2021-08-03 04:23:33] - a: why would that be impleid? is this one of those "because Trump was the worst no criticism of Biden is allowed" things? - mig
[2021-08-03 02:45:22] - mig: "treatment of immigrants don't matter to the democratic party or their friendly media unless there's a republican president" are you implying that the zero-tolerance policy and the related family-separation system in 2018 was better for immigrants than the current situation in 2021? ~a
[2021-08-03 01:50:51] - a: I'm angry the current administration treats immigrants like shit and even angrier at the people ignoring that fact now because apparently treatment of immigrants don't matter to the democratic party or their friendly media unless there's a republican president. - mig
[2021-08-02 21:46:50] - i wonder if you can get long covid or anosmia from breakthrough covid. ~a
[2021-08-02 21:43:31] - fuck me lindsey graham just got a breakthrough covid? what the fuck are the odds of a senator getting breakthrough covid? i know they're not very dangerous, but still, i'm very surprised by the statistical probability of this. ~a
[2021-08-02 21:08:23] - daniel: he probably meant money . . . i read it as money when he posted it, and when i quoted it i still didn't realize it said "data"
~a[2021-08-02 21:07:33] - paul: I'm confused by the part adrian quoted. did you mean money instead of data? -Daniel
[2021-08-02 21:06:30] - paul: not all bureaucrats are useless. some of them have value-added. for instance, something like 80% of the DoEd's budget is grants and loans for education and shit, another 10% of it is special-ed. so i'm not sure "bureaucrats taking data from the states, taking a cut, and then sending it back" is a fair assessment of whats happening. ~a
[2021-08-02 21:04:05] - a: I'm sure I can find better articles than the one I posted, but I have to run. Basically, funding keeps increasing for public education, but lots of it gets soaked up by bureaucracy and administration. I mean, what is the Department of Education other than a bunch of bureaucrats taking data from the states, taking a cut, and then sending it back? -Paul
[2021-08-02 21:02:19] - a: https://reason.org/commentary/inflation-adjusted-k-12-education-spending-per-student-has-increased-by-280-percent-since-1960/ "From 1950 to 2009, student populations increased by 96%, while non-teaching staff increased by a whopping 702%." -Paul
[2021-08-02 20:58:01] - paul: "instead of flowing down to teachers" what do you mean by this? ~a
[2021-08-02 20:57:03] - paul: i'll generally argue against progressives (and maybe even daniel) when they say that the government should do more. but we're talking about school supplies (say $20 / year / kid), this isn't exactly something that can be easily or efficiently privatized without privatizing all of the schools. ~a
[2021-08-02 20:57:00] - a: In this case, it's less about outcomes for students and more about money wasted on bureaucracy (I can never spell that word right the first time) instead of flowing down to teachers. -Paul
[2021-08-02 20:55:06] - paul: yes, you are right i forgot. two weeks ago i argued that public schools are pretty good in the united states and i pointed to (average) test results as my evidence. ~a
[2021-08-02 20:53:27] - a: "are public schools mismanaged?" I believe so, but we just recently had a conversation where I believe you argued otherwise, so it's not surprising we disagree here.
-paul[2021-08-02 20:52:16] - paul: hmmm, wow. ~a
[2021-08-02 20:52:11] - Daniel: For "desperately trying to ignore", I would point to Biden shuffling responsibility off to Harris, who promptly avoided going to the border for as long as possible to where even the media was asking when she was going to go. If the administration was paying attention, there likely wouldn't need to be as many whistleblowers as there have been. -paul
[2021-08-02 20:50:46] - a: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/04/12/fact-check-more-children-held-border-president-biden-than-trump/7189022002/ Under Trump, the number of migrant children temporarily housed near the Mexico border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection peaked at 2,600, in June 2019. Under Biden, the figure as of April 5, the date of Tatum’s post, was 4,231. -Paul
[2021-08-02 20:50:45] - paul: are public schools mismanaged? ~a
[2021-08-02 20:50:43] - a: Sure. Either way just seems dumb to have / need charities for stuff like that but my emotional response to them makes me feel like grinch / scrooge somehow. -Daniel
[2021-08-02 20:50:07] - Daniel: "Is it dumb to be annoyed by charity cause I wish we all just paid more in taxes?" I don't think it's dumb to be annoyed by it, although I would tend to be annoyed by the mismanagement of public schools instead of us not getting taxed enough. -Paul
[2021-08-02 20:48:48] - daniel: i think school supplies for kids (up to some ridiculously low amount per kid) should probably come from tax money, but i think we can probably keep taxes the same by lowering (federal) tax money destined for the dod. ~a
[2021-08-02 20:48:24] - -Daniel
[2021-08-02 20:48:23] - paul: I'm curious about the "the administration is desperately trying to ignore what is going on" - I would even grant that the numbers are bigger but I don't know that Biden (or anyone in the US) has any control over that since its just based on how many people decide to come. I think they could / should be doing more though. I think the family separation drove a lot of media coverage and that it probably should be higher than it is now.
[2021-08-02 20:46:26] - a: for things like that, for teachers to have money to buy supplies, I guess ultimately its all some flavor of "supplies for kids" via some way or another. -Daniel
[2021-08-02 20:45:49] - paul: "the number is greater under Biden than it ever was under Trump" wtf, can you link to this? i was under the impression that the biggest problems happened during the infamous (and now defunct) zero-tolerance policy. ~a
[2021-08-02 20:45:47] - a: And there's evidence that abuse is possibly going on, things are being covered up, and that the administration is desperately trying to ignore what is going on (and that the media frankly seems willing to accommodate). Does it matter if Biden isn't doing any of this to be cruel? -Paul
[2021-08-02 20:44:37] - a: I don't want to speak for Miguel at all, but I do have a question for you: How much does intent matter? For example, let's just grant that Trump was a vindicative asshole with the worst of intentions and Biden is a blameless saint with the best of intentions. Regardless, lots of immigrant children are being held in horrible conditions and the number is greater under Biden than it ever was under Trump. -Paul
[2021-08-02 20:43:57] - daniel: can you be way more specific about the "back to school" fundraisers? ever since we were kids in nova (not representative of the us as a whole), we were required to provide our own paper and binders and shit. are you talking about fundraising for *this* or something else? ~a
[2021-08-02 20:37:32] - Is it dumb to be annoyed by charity cause I wish we all just paid more in taxes? I've seen several different 'back to school' fundraisers of various sorts recently for both teachers and students. The goals are good but like part of me wishes they weren't necessary and in some ways prop up a system I see as broken (underfunded schools). I dunno. Maybe I'm just grumpy today. -Daniel
[2021-08-02 19:58:46] - mig: do you have a point? if you do, i'm not sure i follow. if its that people, here and elsewhere, gave trump a hard time for his zero-tolerance policy but are giving biden a pass on the similar-but-also-so-very-different situation, i'm pretty sure there are a lot of issues with that argument. but i don't want to put words in your mouth. ~a
[2021-08-02 17:58:20] - yah. ~a
[2021-08-02 17:57:57] - something something kids in cages. - mig
[2021-08-02 14:08:40] - paul: "that we would still see an impact" if the cases are low, there will be near-zero impact on the overall cfr. ~a
[2021-08-02 14:03:16] - paul: "it helps prevent new infections". i don't know what is preventing new cases. i want to think its the vaccine, but i have been looking at case data for a lot of similarly-vacinated countries as us, so honestly i don't think its the vaccine only. i think its a confluence of things that is keeping our case-rate down? (otoh, cases are currently rising). ~a
[2021-08-02 13:59:38] - a: Yeah, I get that the nature of overall CFR means it should settle down to a steady number and be harder and harder to move.... I just thought that considering how effective the vaccines are at preventing serious illness that we would still see an impact. Maybe because we're not vaccinated enough OR because it helps prevent new infections too? -Paul
[2021-08-02 12:59:49] - paul: if you want to see a recent cfr, ourworldindata under the "data explorer" lets you look at 7-day-averaged cfr for the united states. which, you can see, does float around a *lot*. usually its near 1% or 2% but not always. the other countries are all over the place. for some reason the cfr for the UK is somehow at 0.1%! crazy. ~a
[2021-07-30 21:02:25] - https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1421213499779211265 Just thought I would throw this tweet out here since it seems relevant to a lot of recent discussion on confusion around COVID and masking and vaccines and misinformation and the CDC and everything else. Have a good weekend everybody!
-Paul[2021-07-30 20:02:44] - Paul: yes the overall cfr will slowly stop changing unless the cases go up significantly. ~a
[2021-07-30 19:48:12] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-cfr-exemplars?country=USA~ITA~OWID_WRL~SWE Slightly off topic, but I'm a little surprised that CFR hasn't gone down more given the vaccine. I guess it's pretty good at preventing infections too? Or maybe there are more undetected infections since they are less dangerous? -Paul
[2021-07-30 19:45:01] - Daniel: So I just stick with being skeptical and trying to verify whenever I can. So I'll be completely open to the idea that the vaccine isn't safe or COVID isn't deadly or whatever, but I'm going to need some strong evidence to back it up or else I'll go with the majority. -Paul
[2021-07-30 19:43:31] - Daniel: Yeah, I don't know. I guess the ideal situation would be a CDC completely immune to political pressure that can present the science to the public and trust them to interpret it intelligently. But that's so far from realistic that it's not even worth considering.
-Paul[2021-07-30 19:39:01] - Twitter war b/w Hart and CDC for the fate of public schools?
-Daniel[2021-07-30 19:38:32] - Yeah I guess ultimately it would come down to that and whether Mr Hart or Fauci or whoever could make the better case to convince more people. In that view I guess Twitter does make sense. So then I guess does the CDC need an outreach person that works on Twitter and just lays out studies and stuff that supports their decisions? Does that already exist? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 19:29:07] - Daniel: School boards and superintendents are probably ultimately answerable to voters so if enough parents get upset that schools aren't being opened to their satisfaction, then that could be a tipping point. -Paul
[2021-07-30 19:28:08] - Daniel: I don't have a good answer. Assuming we're talking about schools and if they should be open / in-person / maskless (which seems reasonable based on the studies listed), I think the idea is to arm parents with knowledge to advocate for what this person thinks is the best policy. -Paul
[2021-07-30 19:17:01] - Just wondering about communication and how best to use science to change policy I guess? Like if he thinks the CDC should be trying to get schools to actively not want masks is Twitter the right way to go? /shrug. I don't particularly know there is a better way just that Twitter feels odd to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned
-Daniel[2021-07-30 19:15:23] - So given that most people aren't scientists / biologists/ virologists how does one discern the basis of the CDC's recommendations from Mr Harts when they don't agree? When 60% of the scientists don't agree with the 40%? Are we qualified to take into account the different factors that effect the outcome of studies? Maybe? Sometimes yes but maybe not in other cases? I dunno. I'm not advocating for censoring Mr Hart or anything. -Daniel
[2021-07-30 19:09:46] - Yeah I guess I'm just thinking about how to question / be skeptical of authority in an increasingly expert / specialized world. I would probably not believe Rick Perry's DoE telling me coal was clean but if the entire scientific community could read the papers / do experiements to show some new tech was good then yeah. -Daniel
[2021-07-30 18:58:09] - Daniel: That first link was labelled as: "Impact on pediatric mental health from COVID-19". Yeah, I agree it's weird grouping to have put that under the other category.... -Paul
[2021-07-30 18:55:56] - Daniel: Did you check the second link for #9? The headline says, "Masks Can Be Detrimental to Babies’ Speech and Language Development" -Paul
[2021-07-30 18:55:13] - Daniel: Who were also right about other things that the CDC eventually came around to (vaccinated people not needing masks being the big one). -Paul
[2021-07-30 18:54:40] - Daniel: And yeah, I get that on the surface taking the word of a rando on Twitter sounds pretty bad, but where else are we supposed to get info? Many of those links are to reputable sounding sources if you dig into them. Yeah, they could be cherry picked, but a lot of those points made are things that I've heard from other sources... -Paul
[2021-07-30 18:53:11] - Daniel: Sure, I get that you would trust the CDC more than some rando on twitter. But, what if it was the DoE under Rick Perry saying that coal is clean? Obviously that's a bit of an exaggerated example, but I'm just trying to point out Adrian's point about authority not always being right. -Paul
[2021-07-30 18:03:01] - So not conclusive for all his stuff but big oof on the one I picked to look at. -Daniel
[2021-07-30 18:02:45] - ... and it literally doesn't contain the word mask in the pdf. Control F - mask -> 0 results. It does talk about the pandemic being bad for the mental health of kids. Nothing about masks though. -Daniel
[2021-07-30 18:01:47] - Paul: Well those questions aside - I think I'm out on this guys recommendations - lol. I picked one of his links that I was skeptical about (#9 MASKS CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO DEVELOPMENT - https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/The%20Impact%20of%20COVID-19%20on%20Pediatric%20Mental%20Health%20-%20A%20Study%20of%20Private%2 and... -Danie
[2021-07-30 17:50:02] - a: Yeah I don't think blindly following authority figures either is good, but twitter just seems like such a poor forum for scientific discussion? Maybe its just the only real tool to amplify his voice? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 17:48:19] - Maybe thats what he is doing just in a very public way? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 17:48:09] - Paul: I don't entirely know what my point is, I don't mind someone pointing out that conflicting studies exist or even coming to a different conclusion but blasting stuff on Twitter seems an odd way to go about it. Like why should anyone believe that guy is more scientifically accurate / rigorous than the CDC? I dunno, shouldn't he be trying to convince other scientists / policy makers? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 17:47:04] - daniel: learning more information and learning more about how that information is used doesn't change the fallibility of any conclusions. you're alllllmost arguing that we should blindly follow authority figures, and i'll usually vote that we should question authority. ~a
[2021-07-30 17:44:43] - Paul: I am not opposed to "look into the evidence ourselves" but if you are coming to a different conclusion than the CDC I think I would generally trust the CDC over me. Like I agree they aren't infallible but I don't think I'm less fallible? Is that a word? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 17:34:38] - Daniel: So even if, for example, having virtual school instead of in person might reduce the spread of COVID by some small percent, that doesn't necessarily mean it's good policy if it's screwing up the education of children completely. -Paul
[2021-07-30 17:32:43] - Daniel: I think Fauci / the CDC is not infallible and they have made mistakes and/or been slow to adapt to the evidence and are influenced by politics and frankly I feel like their job isn't necessarily to weight the pros and cons of things but just suggest strategies to prevent the spread of diseases. -Paul
[2021-07-30 17:30:43] - Daniel: I mean, in a hypothetical where Fauci / the CDC said something like "even vaccinated people can't eat indoors at restaurants at all" but there were studies showing that transmission of COVID was very unlikely among vaccinated people in restaurants.... what would you do? -Paul
[2021-07-30 17:27:50] - Daniel: Ah, I re-read one of your posts and I think I get it now. Yes, I think the idea is to not just completely rely on Fauci and the CDC and look into the evidence ourselves. -Paul
[2021-07-30 17:25:33] - Daniel: I'm not sure I get your question? I think the point is to share knowledge, which I appreciate. Personally, I feel like I don't know as much about COVID as I feel like we should know by now. -Paul
[2021-07-30 16:05:48] - "the post" being the guys twitter post list not your's Paul - just to clarify. -Daniel
[2021-07-30 16:01:05] - I'm just confused what the theory is that underlies the post. -Daniel
[2021-07-30 16:00:33] - Like the point seems to be to convince us that kids wearing masks doesn't do enough to be worth it but if CDC/Fauci/etc still say to wear them why do we assume that this guy and these studies are a better indicator than whatever CDC et all is basing their decision off of? Assumed political interference? Slow beauacratic decision making? Assuming CDC doesn't have public best interest at heart? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 15:59:03] - Paul: I haven't gone through them either but I'm curious as to the thought process behind it (which is a nebulous thing so can mostly be speculated at) but is the idea that the CDC/Fauci/etc hasn't seen these? ignoring these? seeing them but still coming to a wrong conclusion? -Daniel
[2021-07-30 03:19:23] - https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1420942106449694722 I haven't even started to go through these links yet, but wanted to post this here in case anybody else is interested in digging into the data around if having children wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID makes sense. -Paul
[2021-07-30 03:18:34] - mig: Fair. Maybe I should've used Don Lemon as an example since he himself did that.
-Paul[2021-07-30 00:17:06] - paul: well the problem is I’m pretty sure some rando isn’t getting anywhere near a current or former president without the secret service intervening. - mig
[2021-07-29 16:54:12] - gotta go make / eat lunch with Alex. Back in awhile~ -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:44:58] - Paul: I think I would be ok characterizing this as a "jerk move" for either public or private person. But either way not one I would be super concerned with? The follow up I guess is that sometimes people deserve jerk moves and then whether Tucker deserved it or not. Which maybe underlies the previous part of the discussion already? -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:43:42] - Daniel: But if it helps, sure, we can assume you're a public figure or replace you with Obama or Biden or some public figure you agree with. -Paul
[2021-07-29 16:41:47] - Daniel: "Am I a public figure in this hypothetical?" Well, I guess we need to clarify your point. I am saying this is a jerk move regardless of who it is said to (public person vs private person, somebody I agree with or disagree with). I thought your point was that this wasn't a jerk move at all, but maybe it depends on if it is a public person or not for you? -Paul
[2021-07-29 16:37:40] - If we are discussing whether this was a jerk move or not on Dan's (I think that was his name right?) part then I think thats a fairly low standard so I don't think I would fight hard against that. Saying its a jerk move to call someone out like that in front of their kid. Sure. I still mostly shrug though. Lots of jerk moves happen all the time. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:36:14] - Paul: Am I a public figure in this hypothetical? Acceptable? I guess. Also acceptable for me to just ignore them. Jerk move? Mixed. I mean in theory this person doesn't really have another avenue to express this opinion directly to me where they know I will hear it so I get them acting on that. But obviously its not exciting for me because I wouldn't like it. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:30:55] - Daniel: So, if somebody did that to you, while grocery shopping with your family, you wouldn't at all think it was unacceptable or out of place or a jerk move? -Paul
[2021-07-29 16:14:03] - And I wouldn't label it as "harassment" / "ambush" / "accosted" or any of those words. Tucker encountered someone who didn't like him and that person enlightened Tucker as to his opinion. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:13:01] - Paul: Disagree then I guess. I think calling Tucker the worst is an overstatement too. But I don't think the encounter as I witnessed was something I would be overly concerned with either. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:11:25] - I wouldn't call it polite but his voice was an acceptable tone? I think often in these types of videos people are yelling or waving arms around or generally seem more agitated. So that would be my guess as to the distinction? But yeah I don't think being polite was his top concern. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:10:38] - Daniel: Sure, we can drop the "following" part if it changes anything. I don't think it does. I think just calling somebody the worst human being known to mankind by itself is plenty by itself (and should be pretty undeniable). -Paul
[2021-07-29 16:09:48] - I don't know why I'm bad at these double posts in the last month. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:09:25] - We need to define our use of "follow" in this context. If you "follow" him all around the store telling him he is a murdered that gets closer and at some point become harassment. If you "follow" five feet for 10 seconds to finish your though paragraph and then conclude I think thats acceptable in the realm of a public figure. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:09:22] - We need to define our use of "follow" in this context. If you "follow" him all around the store telling him he is a murdered that gets closer and at some point become harassment. If you "follow" five feet for 10 seconds to finish your though paragraph and then conclude I think thats acceptable in the realm of a public figure. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:07:45] - daniel: and I agree the carlson wasn't polite either, but that wasn't my point. My point was ana's take on him being polite was absurd. - mig
[2021-07-29 16:07:37] - But I think there is space between this guy wasn't polite to Tucker and this guy harassed / accosted / ambushed Tucker. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:07:00] - Daniel: I can more understand the argument that as a public figure it can be expected, but I don't get the idea that his isn't a jerk move and harassment. Obama is out shopping with his family and I follow him around the store calling him a murderer is fine? -Paul
[2021-07-29 16:06:40] - mig: I would agree that the guy is not overly concerned with being polite. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:05:35] - ana also makes a big of that tucker "touched him" but it's clear from the video tucker is just trying to get the guy to keep his distance. Moreover, back to politeness, trying to get in someone's face to berate them just isn't polite no matter how you slice it. - mig
[2021-07-29 16:04:50] - Paul: We are being very pedantic here but the "following" I envision for being part of harassment does not include "following" someone for five feet as part of a 'conversation'. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 16:03:25] - Daniel: "did he? The video shows him "follow" him like 5 feet?" You answered your own question. He obviously followed him to initiate the conversation, then Tucker made it clear he didn't want to talk and walked away and he continued to follow him. I mean, they're in a store, it's not like he could follow him that far. -Paul
[2021-07-29 16:01:01] - I think there are a lot of things that would have made it not ok - if it went on for some time, if he followed him to his car, or to a different store, or was yelling, or actually being aggressive but as it was it seemed pretty mild. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:58:39] - If I was a public figure I think I would expect it? If I was Tucker I would 100% expect it. If I'm Kevin Durant I would expect it. If I was Will Smith I would expect it. If I was Maddow I would expect it. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:57:47] - Paul: "continuing to follow him around" - did he? The video shows him "follow" him like 5 feet? Does he follow him more than that? If not then yeah I don't think it rises to harassment for me. /shrug. Public figure gets recognized. Person shares opinion with public figure. Public figure then leaves and goes about day. Doesn't seem asshole or harassment. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:55:42] - Daniel: You would be fine if somebody did that to you? -Paul
[2021-07-29 15:54:39] - Daniel: "What makes it an asshole thing to do? What makes it harassment?" Seriously? A stranger going up to somebody in a store with his family and telling him that he's the worst human being known to man and continuing to follow him around to talk about how horrible he is even though he asked you to stop? -Paul
[2021-07-29 15:54:38] - mig: Calling someone son isn't very polite. I think if anyone here called you son you would rightly be upset. I also think the idea of the "next person" is something to keep in mind but also seems tricky because there obviously has to be a line somewhere so as long as you are currently on the ok side of it saying that someone else could go over the line seems a weak argument. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:51:37] - daniel: some of ana's take was a little absurd. I don't think someone saying, "don't fucking call me son" isn't very polite, and he was in fact being aggressive. And cheering this on, as one of the panelist points out, just encourages more of this, and the next group of people who confront public figures may not be as physically restrained. - mig
[2021-07-29 15:51:30] - Maybe there is more to the video that I havent' seen? Does he follow him out to his car? Or around the store for an extended time? I don't think telling him he is the worst person for less than 100 seconds amounts to a standard of harassment to me. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:47:13] - As a super basic example that I think is probably what is driving this video in question is Tucker actively trying to prevent people from getting the covid vaccine which just seems to be objectively making the world a worse place and isn't political and demonstrably gets people killed. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:45:46] - -Daniel
[2021-07-29 15:45:44] - Paul: What makes it an asshole thing to do? What makes it harassment? Its not repeated and doesn't seem to go on that long. I also think saying people dont agree with Tucker politically is mischaracterizing this. Bret Baier I might disagree with politically but I don't know that I would confront him about it because he isn't as actively bad as Tucker is. Tucker I think makes the world a worse place and I don't think that is a political.
[2021-07-29 15:36:39] - Daniel: So to me, yeah, he's "allowed" to do this, but I think it's a real asshole thing to do and condemn him doing it and I hope others would also condemn this idea of normalizing the harassment of people that you disagree with politically when they're just out at a store with their family. -Paul
[2021-07-29 15:35:11] - Daniel: "doesn't seem unallowable" To me, it's not really an issue of what is allowable or not. As somebody said, there's a first amendment right. To me, it's about if it's a good thing to do or not. I mean, the Nazis had a right to march in Skokie but that doesn't make it a good thing. -Paul
[2021-07-29 14:31:46] - But randomly seeing Tucker in the store and being like oh man I'm taking this opportunity to tell this guy what a POS he is. /shrug. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 14:31:03] - mig: I think a line would be actively seeking out Tucker to talk to him vs running into him at the store randomly. Like if boyo had been outside Tuckers house to tell him he was the worst ever then ambushed would feel entirely accurate and would be not acceptable and feel much more dangerous. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 14:28:09] - mig: I think I'm marginally more on the Ana side. I think it probably comes down to definitions of things and where the line is. If the guy punched Tucker that would be bad. Telling him he is the worst person might be an overstatement but doesn't seem unallowable either. They used the word "ambushed" and "accosted" and I don't think I would use either of those words to describe it. -Daniel
[2021-07-29 14:23:05] - https://www.cato.org/commentary/joe-biden-overseeing-one-largest-cuts-legal-immigration-history If you can't read that previous one because of the paywall, you can read it directly on Cato's website. -Paul
[2021-07-29 14:22:39] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/28/joe-biden-is-overseeing-one-largest-cuts-legal-immigration-history/?fbclid=IwAR0s3XU9BzvrrX253X3Lcvy9z4zJ1yPd Also, like Obama before him, it looks like Biden is pretty bad on immigration. -Paul
[2021-07-29 14:21:18] - https://reason.com/2021/07/28/two-more-whistleblowers-come-forward-alleging-neglect-and-mismanagement-at-migrant-youth-shelter/ The situation with migrant kids at the border is still a big problem... although it seems like people have lost interest since it's not Trump. -Paul
[2021-07-29 14:18:23] - mig: Yeesh, I really hope Ana Navarro never disagrees with me on something and catches me with my family in a store somewhere.
-Paul[2021-07-29 01:15:03] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9wnNodSjh8 pretty interesting discussion. - mig
[2021-07-28 21:16:24] - paul: I do have some tips which are very similar. ~a
[2021-07-28 21:09:12] - paul: i'm sold. i might buy some ibonds again. he listed a lot of downsides (yearly purchase limit, 12 month minimum, 3 months rate lost on redemption, can't buy them from just anywhere), but the upsides seem to outweigh the downsides. ~a
[2021-07-28 16:35:54] - daniel: Heh, yeah, I definitely got less interested when I heard that it has to be bought through the treasury directly. Not at all surprised it's a pain in the ass. -Paul
[2021-07-28 15:51:19] - She definitely falls into the risk averse category. -Daniel
[2021-07-28 15:51:07] - a: Less risk. Its for a cash cushion for savings to help us (Andrea) feel more comfortable with life. -Daniel
[2021-07-28 15:49:03] - I've held ibonds before btw
~a[2021-07-28 15:48:15] - Paul: I'm at the beach, I'll watch it tonight. ~a
[2021-07-28 15:43:47] - Daniel: why not vbtlx? Just curious. Even if you want ibonds I feel like vanguard has some plans that hold fed bonds . . . ? ~a
[2021-07-28 15:04:47] - The treasury direct website was annoying to me though. When you log in you can't type your password. Blew my mind. -Daniel
[2021-07-28 14:58:17] - bought* I-bonds
[2021-07-28 14:56:45] - Paul: I actually bond I-bonds this week. -Daniel
[2021-07-28 14:53:13] - a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBbCyHEbkk I think there's a 50% chance you have mentioned these to me before, so sorry if that's the case, but I watched this video and thought you would be interested (if you don't already know about I-Bonds). I'm also enjoying his YouTube channel in general. Some good info there. -Paul
[2021-07-27 13:30:34] - a: Oh in my head you were back this week. Travel safe then! -Daniel
[2021-07-27 03:25:04] - Daniel: nope, sorry, im out of town until next week. ~a
[2021-07-27 01:08:51] - a: sc2 now? -Daniel
[2021-07-26 22:03:44] - or a retirement planner (not their specialty but they can still help) or tax professional? ~a
[2021-07-26 20:18:07] - still really seems like you should find a CPA Paul
-Daniel[2021-07-26 19:39:53] - paul: (i am not a tax professional, and i'm only like 50% sure this is right, so take this with a grain of salt) i think capital gains effect your main bracket as well? so your capital gains being inconsistent/volatile will affect how your other income is taxed. is this wrong? i basically don't understand how marginal tax brackets are effected by your capital gains, but i'm pretty sure that they are affected somehow. ~a
[2021-07-26 13:37:19] - a: Makes sense to look at income for this year vs others, but long term capital gains rates are current 15% for incomes ranging between $40,001 to $441,450 as I understand it, so even if my income varies in the future, I don't think it will be going outside that range much. So it shouldn't make a difference, right? -Paul
[2021-07-26 12:59:04] - paul: like you say, i don't have a crystal ball: so all of my decisions are predicated on relatively small change to tax law. effectively i pretend there will be no change to tax law. so, instead i look at my current year's income: is it going to be higher than usual or lower than usual? based on what we said before: of (attempting) making income stable, i decide then whether to choose the low cost basis shares or high cost basis. ~a
[2021-07-26 12:55:37] - paul: i have faith i'll beat you by december, but its quickly become a much closer game. ~a
[2021-07-26 02:31:05] - Put another way, if you all had to guess, will capital gains taxes be higher or lower in X years (where X is probably somewhere between 2-10)? -Paul
[2021-07-26 02:30:25] - I know nobody here is a tax professional (I think) or has a crystal ball, but let's say I had some stock I was going to sell which was going to get taxed at the long term capital gains tax rates. Should I sell my lower cost basis shares now or higher cost basis shares now? -Paul
[2021-07-23 16:59:03] - a: Sweating in the Fantasy Investing competition yet? -Paul
[2021-07-23 14:14:16] - https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1418562940458967046 I think one of the bigger horrible legacies of Trump is the affect he has had on people who got obsessed over hating him so much (Trump Derangement Syndrome, if you will). I think it has really screwed up the journalism industry and made big tech go censorship happy. -Paul
[2021-07-23 14:07:47] - a: I wish liberals were leading the charge against this instead of leading the charge for it. The government trying to get major tech companies to coordinate together to act as a cartel to censor speech? That should raise numerous alarm bells for people on the left, I would think. -Paul
[2021-07-23 13:20:11] - i would prefer that the social media companies were trying to be more independent. i would prefer that the news companies weren't shrugging this off. ~a
[2021-07-23 13:18:51] - paul: "lots of articles have been written about the coordination". yes i found a few of these articles. i read the wsj one, but it seems to have a stupid paywall. it does seem problematic to me (i'm unsettled). i agree that its bad and the ends make it more understandable. ~a
[2021-07-22 13:32:32] - a: Or discuss the pros and cons of vaccines (some of which are based on pretty new technology) and possible side effects. -Paul
[2021-07-22 13:29:21] - a: And you keep coming back to Trump as a single example, but that's not really what anybody is talking about here. We're talking about if people should be able to, I don't know, speculate that masks might work even when the CDC is telling everybody not to wear them, or that maybe the virus came from a lab leak even if the official government line is that is a racist conspiracy theory... -Paul
[2021-07-22 13:26:44] - a: "does it matter what the ends are?" I think it's bad regardless of what the ends are, but sure, the ends can make it more or less understandable why social media companies might want to do it. -Paul
[2021-07-22 13:25:38] - a: That who is working with the White House? Facebook and other social media companies? I don't know if there have been any press releases or anything to that effect, but lots of articles have been written about the coordination and I haven't seen or heard about them disputing that. -Paul
[2021-07-22 12:21:02] - Paul: is there any evidence that they're working with the Whitehouse? If there is I haven't seen it. Also pls tell me, does it matter what the ends are? If one of the Whitehouses wants to shut down "fake" news that makes their president look bad and the other is literally worried about public health and trying to stem a pathogen in the time of a pandemic? nakedly political indeed. ~a
[2021-07-22 11:43:36] - mig: how so? is it new? is it precedent setting? you seemed to be arguing that it was neither when you said trump did the same? ~a
[2021-07-22 05:54:16] - aaron: no, we're not in agreement. - mig
[2021-07-22 01:44:38] - Not to mention how nakedly political it all seems to be. -Paul
[2021-07-22 01:43:18] - And, to go along with what Miguel said, it's particularly galling considering how badly the government and other authorities have mangled what should and should not be considered "misinformation" just a year ago. How many things being banned right now were CDC recommendations last year? How many things deemed "misinformation" last year are taken more seriously now? -Paul
[2021-07-22 01:38:21] - aaron: What concerns me is how comfortable the American public seems to be with the government openly admitting to coordinating with these large tech companies to purge certain viewpoints from ALL of the platforms. -Paul
[2021-07-22 01:36:33] - aaron: I don't know if it's a huge break from precedent (at least in my mind), but in the past I don't think the government was quite as blatant about working in conjunction with media companies to censor certain viewpoints AND those same companies seemed to be so eager to listen. -Paul
[2021-07-21 18:54:02] - i personally don't find it unsettling when politicians speak hyperbolically, i think it's something i've seen before. but maybe i'm just less easily unsettled - aaron
[2021-07-21 18:53:11] - okay! sounds like we're in agreement that none of this seems very new, newsworthy, or "precedent setting". i must have misread the room earlier - aaron
[2021-07-21 15:31:33] - and it's a bit unsettling when the president of the united states proclaims that fb "is killing people". I didn't like it when Trump made hyperbolic statements like that, and it's not ok for Biden to do so either. - mig
[2021-07-21 14:56:48] - aaron: It's objectionable, because the arbiters of what "misnformation" is aren't doing a good job at it. - mig
[2021-07-20 17:43:51] - i mean as sort of an egregious example of what i'm saying, if the white house has any sliver of control over social media, why was the president banned from twitter while he was president? - aaron
[2021-07-20 17:41:28] - shouldn't the objection be more something like "it's a bad precedent where a given media outlet determines what is misinformation and what isn't?" ...and why is that objectionable? i would think every media outlet has been determining what is misinformation since the beginning of media outlets - aaron
[2021-07-20 17:40:22] - i'm probably very behind on the news, but i thought the white house had been telling the media (social media, websites, newspapers, radio, TV) what to do for like the past 60 years. and sometimes they listen and sometimes they don't. where's the scary precedent here and why is it suddenly stemming from the government? - aaron
[2021-07-19 14:38:40] - a: both those things at some points were considered as misinformation so "dangerous" you couldn't talk about them on some of the social media platforms. - mig
[2021-07-17 20:38:32] - a: Yes, sorry, I probably should've used a different phrase. I meant I wasn't thinking of you specifically at all. It was a truly random "other" person. -Paul
[2021-07-16 20:44:19] - mig: with the lab leak theory, we still don't know it for-sure came from a lab. so (unless you're counting the trump administration) there's no misinformation here that i know of. hunter biden laptop thing was misinformation? i guess i don't know what you mean. ~a
[2021-07-16 20:40:46] - I would argue the Hunter Biden laptop thing was another instance of that, but probably others would disagree on that. - mig
[2021-07-16 20:40:24] - I also think we should be more wary about things being labeled as "misinformation" when we've already a had an instance of something incorrectly being labeled as such (the lab leak theory). - mig
[2021-07-16 19:54:59] - shouldn't it be "in addition to you"?
~a[2021-07-16 19:54:41] - you say "not necessarily you" . . . but didn't i already concede to this? ~a
[2021-07-16 19:53:51] - a: Can agree that it's a bad precedent to set where the government determines what is misinformation and what isn't. Because your party isn't always going to be in charge. -Paul
[2021-07-16 19:51:12] - a: Right, you think democrats mostly fight misinformation and republicans mostly spread it. That doesn't surprise me. I disagree and think both sides spread misinformation about equally, but it doesn't really matter. I'm hoping even somebody (not necessarily you) who thinks D's always fight and R's always spread.... -Paul
[2021-07-16 19:27:07] - paul: democratic administrations sometimes fight misinformation: covid19 vaccines stop preventable deaths due to disease, and people who spout lies about the vaccines are getting people killed. there's counterexamples to these, of course, but i'm still kinda noticing a weird pattern here, man. ~a
[2021-07-16 19:26:32] - paul: its not "the point". republican administrations sometimes spread misinformation: bleach as a disinfectant for the inside of human body, powerful ultraviolet works on the inside of human body, iraq is somehow related to 9/11 and have and use shittons of weapons of mass destruction. ~a
[2021-07-16 19:26:00] - https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1416112619031777285 Barely related, but I thought this was a good use of "That escalated quickly".
-Paul[2021-07-16 19:23:17] - a: And that's obviously the point. The white house is always going to consider information that goes against their beliefs to be misinformation. So you might support any Democratic misinformation campaigns but claim that all Republican misinformation campaigns are coming from the WH itself. -Paul
[2021-07-16 19:20:39] - a: Well, that's another good point. Misinformation often comes from the government, so it's rich that they are trying to campaign against it now. -Paul
[2021-07-16 19:15:10] - paul: i especially hate your iraq war example though. the misinformation there was getting people killed, but the misinformation was coming *from* the whitehouse. ~a
[2021-07-16 19:14:19] - paul/mig: hmm, ok you have good points. i'll do an about-face and say that the whitehouse shouldn't be forwarding details about misinformation to facebook unless laws are being broken. even if laws are being broken, there's probably a process for that that doesn't involve the whitehouse directly. ~a
[2021-07-16 19:12:28] - Considering how often Congress keeps calling tech executives in to answer about "misinformation", I have to imagine the threat of regulation is very much on their minds. So if the White House comes knocking to ask about removing some misinformation, do you want to say no when they've got their FCC head in place and basically control of congress? -Paul
[2021-07-16 19:10:53] - a: "i know that the whitehouse tells facebook about misinformation" Even that level concerns me. I mean, what if the GWB spokesperson was talking about notifying Facebook about "misinformation" about the Iraq War or Patriot Act? -Paul
[2021-07-16 19:07:11] - mig: since misinformation is generally legal to spread, the arbiter is almost always the platforms that are doing the spreading. did psaki suggest otherwise? i know that the whitehouse tells facebook about misinformation, but i don't think they're doing it in an illegal or harmful way, are they? ~a
[2021-07-16 19:04:23] - a: personally, I think the more troubling thing is the notion of government being the arbitor of what is considered "misinformation", since people in power tend to consider that merely information they don't happen to like. - mig
[2021-07-16 18:57:14] - paul: it definitely worries me. "you shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others" is a patently ridiculous thing for the president's representative to say at the whitehouse podium. some of the other stuff she said was pretty normal though. ~a
[2021-07-16 18:46:57] - daniel: my parents weren't poor, but also not very well off, but they put both me and my sister through private school (I would have gone to a private school if i didn't make it into TJ). It's important to note that not all private schools are Sidwell Friends. - mig
[2021-07-16 18:41:56] - I really don't like the idea of the government coordinating with big tech companies to decide who shouldn't be allowed to express opinions on ANY platform. -Paul
[2021-07-16 18:41:21] - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1416104577364017153 I feel like I am spamming way too many different controversial topics today (and I am hours away from going on vacation so I won't be able to follow up much for pretty much a week), but this kind of stuff REALLY worries me, and I hope it worries people on both sides of the aisle. -Paul
[2021-07-16 18:20:34] - Dnaiel: Or we could even do a compromise where, instead of government managing schools themselves, they could provide vouchers for parents to use on private schools of their choice. That way people can still get a "free" education, and have some choice also (to hopefully avoid bad schools they would otherwise be stuck in). -Paul
[2021-07-16 18:19:04] - Daniel: But if you look at something like higher education, I think you can see stuff like lambda school which has the potential of providing a good education to anybody, even those who don't have money for a huge tuition. -Paul
[2021-07-16 18:18:13] - Daniel: It's hard to say because the system we have now is a weird combination, right? We have public schools and private schools. Because public schools already exist to fill the void of "free schooling", there really isn't a market for private schools there. -Paul
[2021-07-16 18:03:25] - Paul: But do most kids have tons of money to pay for private school? Capitalism ending up with a better school is not the same as Capatilism ending up with a better school SYSTEM for all kids. -Daniel
[2021-07-16 17:24:13] - daniel: mostly biden dunking on socialism I thought was a pretty big deal, but even the dunking on communism is notable. Hearing a democrat or anyone left leaning person denouncing communism in pretty frank terms is rare. - mig
[2021-07-16 17:21:52] - Daniel: "However I'm not sure that capitalism is going to make schools better for most kids" I am.
But that's not even the point I am trying to make here. I'm just making the observation the for Education: Government involvement = High and Satisfaction / Efficiency = Low. I think the fact that so many people pay tons of money for private school (over free school) speaks volumes. -Paul[2021-07-16 17:13:24] - paul: For schools I don't think people are against improving them or making them better. However I'm not sure that capitalism is going to make schools better for most kids. And I think things like food insecurity which capitalism definitely doesn't address has shown to have a big impact and argues for more socialism (free / subsidized meals) not less? -Daniel
[2021-07-16 17:11:48] - paul: uh, i'm not sure? its kinda hard to say. it might be higher than that, but who knows. ("reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem" . . . that being said, 0.0018% is actually pretty high. i hope that's not actually the chance of being killed by the vaccine though) ~a
[2021-07-16 17:03:26] - a: Actually, I think for my analogy to work, I probably need to get the chances of dying from the vaccine. That's like, what, 1 in 100 million or something? -Paul
[2021-07-16 17:01:32] - a: Heh, I don't want you making fun of me for my stupid idea before I find out why it is stupid first.
-Paul[2021-07-16 16:53:54] - don't hold out on me, man. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:53:31] - a: "you gotta look at an analogy that is more fitting" Heh, now that I think about it, the specific thing I am thinking of comparing it to might actually be a pretty close fit. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:51:28] - a: Hah! I don't need stats school. I need reading comprehension. I completely missed that the 12 million was only J&J (and of course now that I think about it, the number seems completely too low). Thanks. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:48:05] - "I want to compare it to other things like lightning strikes or dying in a terrorist attack or dying in a car crash" then definitely use 3 per million. don't use 1 in 100,000. also way more importantly, you gotta look at an analogy that is more fitting. lightning strikes don't save millions of lives. terrorist attacks don't save 95% of the population from catching and dying from a preventable disease. don't get me started on cars. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:45:50] - paul: "100 out of (roughly) 10 million works out to 1 out of 100,000." you gotta go back to stats school, man. yes 100 out of 12.8 million is about 1 out of 100,000, but there have been 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered. you definitely can't *only* look at the *worst* covid19 vaccine in terms of ratio of issues, and use that as your benchmark for issues.
that's, like completely and totally unfair. ~a[2021-07-16 16:42:25] - a: I'm just trying to get a sense of just how unlikely an adverse reaction is. I want to compare it to other things like lightning strikes or dying in a terrorist attack or dying in a car crash. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:41:27] - a: Okay, but what about this one? "After 12.8 million J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine doses administered, there have been around 100 preliminary reports of GBS identified in VAERS". 100 out of (roughly) 10 million works out to 1 out of 100,000.... right? -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:40:09] - maybe i'd say "less than 1 in 100,000"? more importantly, though, why? what is the context? ~a
[2021-07-16 16:36:48] - paul: not exactly. 2-5 per million somewhere between 1 in 1,000,000 and 1 in 100,000. i'd probably just say 2-5 per million. or 3 per million? ~a
[2021-07-16 16:32:54] - a: Thanks, yes, that is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Sounds like the chances of some kind of serious adverse reaction of any type might be on the order of 1 in 100,000? -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:32:00] - (second link doesn't give any numbers though, sorry) ~a
[2021-07-16 16:31:28] - paul: this link is pretty good too. it talks more about anaphylaxis/etc. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:24:14] - paul: i think this is the link you want. most of these are one in a million (or less). they do talk about death some in there, and how (obviously) its not always clear what causes people to die. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:21:17] - a: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/jj-vaccine-side-effects-guillain-barre-syndrome-and-what-you-should-know/2553296/ Like this or the blood clots. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:20:30] - a: Ah, sorry, I meant serious adverse reactions. Not necessarily death, but maybe requiring hospitalization or something. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:19:15] - paul: much much more. adverse reactions to the covid vaccine??? something like one in two. none of the reactions are anywhere nearly as bad (short or long term) as covid itself. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:17:48] - Completely random aside: Does anybody know where I could get good data on how many people have adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine (or what the chances are)? Like, is it one in a million? Ten million? Less? More? -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:16:00] - I think I recently had to pay car taxes or something and it cost MORE to pay online versus paying by mail. WTF? -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:14:58] - Which, I think is kinda unlike me (maybe I am wrong). Gurkie was telling me to shut up. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:14:41] - We got our passports renewed lately, and Gurkie had to do a TON of really annoying work to get everything in order. We go to the post office to get the paperwork done in person (because that's how it has to be, I guess), and it was so long and inconvenient that I was making snarky comments IN FRONT OF THE PERSON WORKING THERE. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:13:31] - yes, that's appalling. i def can't sugarcoat that. i think in aggregate, the us is pretty average, but that's pretty fucked. sorry but what's the alternative, though? how would you design a school system? ~a
[2021-07-16 16:13:31] - a: Right!? I mean, USPS, DMV, IRS... pretty much every interaction I have with a government entity is absolutely horrible. And every area of my life which is annoying is usually an area which has a ton of government regulation (healthcare, banking, education, cable). -paul
[2021-07-16 16:12:08] - https://www.yahoo.com/now/least-41-baltimore-high-school-121900046.html Obviously there are some extenuating circumstances, but this is still pretty appalling. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:11:37] - paul: i hate the usps, you'll get no argument from me on that. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:11:00] - a: No need to apologize for being flippant. I wasn't offended. I was just surprised you were so dismissive of the idea of millions of kids being failed by the public school system because it's "average".
-Paul[2021-07-16 16:10:25] - a: Oh, and I forgot to mention that like the truly socialized healthcare system we DO have (Veterans Affairs) is apparently REALLY horrible. Another example: Look at USPS versus any competition. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:10:13] - paul: "we should put more things under their control" i hardly ever say that though. i think the 401k system is a perfect example of "thank god we (mostly) didn't put that in their control" ~a
[2021-07-16 16:09:31] - a: I guess I just don't understand how anybody can look at how our government handles things, and thinks, "Yeah, we should put more things under their control". -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:08:47] - paul: also sorry for being flippant. i still do think that bad sections of any large system can sometimes be ok and sometimes be not ok. ~a
[2021-07-16 16:08:41] - a: Sure, this isn't about all regulation being bad. I'm just saying that, in my mind, the areas of American life where the government seems MOST involved also happen to be the areas that seem like the most inefficient. -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:08:23] - paul: our policing system isn't average, though, right? (this one i haven't looked up, sorry, i'm just guessing) ~a
[2021-07-16 16:07:07] - a: "sure but that can be said about any large system" That seems like an oddly flippant response. I disagree. I mean, the airline system is pretty large but we don't have planes falling out of the sky all the time. Also, if we decided that large swaths of policing was bad but "that can be said about any large system" would that be fine? -Paul
[2021-07-16 16:05:52] - paul: as for your healthcare assessment, just because bad (or onerous) regulation exists, doesn't mean all regulation is bad (or onerous). ~a
prev <-> next