prev <-> next
[2021-10-08 15:54:24] - a: Ah yeah I gotcha - in my head I can see the contribution amount by source as well but I'd have to check and make sure I'm not just remembering some other balance number by source. -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:49:25] - daniel: most transaction/history/statement tools won't let you go back like 10+ years, though. vanguard does, but most others do not. and they'll tell you the current balance by source, but not the . . . total contributions (ever, since the beginning of time) by source? if they do, i can't see it except in vanguard. ~a
[2021-10-08 15:46:20] - Paul: You can look up your contributions by source in all the various 401k tools I've ever had for my work 401ks (and Andrea's). -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:45:38] - a: Yeah I don't remember exactly but the difference b/w roth laddering / using roth contributions and just taking the 10% penalty wasn't that big in the end. I'd have to go back and see if I can find the math. -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:45:01] - paul: "Hopefully they track it for us" i always assumed that they did, but i don't see it in my statements. i think its reported in your federal tax filings? i'm super not sure how this is done. ~a
[2021-10-08 15:40:23] - paul: "that terrible" isn't what i'd call a concrete threshold. ~a
[2021-10-08 15:40:18] - a: Thanks for the info about the Roth ladders and sepp withdrawals. -Paul
[2021-10-08 15:39:32] - Daniel: "eating the 10% penalty wasn't actually that terrible results wise and can still be worth it for the growth you get from the tax free (so far) 401k money" Yeah, I didn't do the math, but that's what I assumed. Thanks for the info. -Paul
[2021-10-08 15:38:19] - a: "2. you get money OUT of retirement accounts before 59.5 without the 10% penalty. it's benefit #2 that addresses your current situation." Ah, yes, okay. I was focusing on the first and not second. I can see how the 2nd is important here. I don't even know how much Roth contributions I have. Hopefully they track it for us. -Paul
[2021-10-08 15:32:08] - Also the adviser I talked with did a lot of the sim stuff that Adrian mentions and said that just eating the 10% penalty wasn't actually that terrible results wise and can still be worth it for the growth you get from the tax free (so far) 401k money. -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:30:15] - Paul: You can read / figure out roth ladders more later if you want but the main takeaway from them is that you only need money to cover five years if your otherwise retirement accounts have enough. (because a roth ladder takes five years to work and after that you can start to get money from your retirement accounts prior to 59.5). -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:28:26] - Paul: Also my financial adviser lady that I talked to awhile back just suggested putting more $ into Roth accounts currently so that we had more $ in those accounts later. Because you can withdraw up to the amount you contributed to roth accounts without penalty (since you already paid tax on those $). -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:21:52] - paul: "what about inflation?" i think most 4% or whatever swr plans account for a high but statistically expected amount of inflation. ~a
[2021-10-08 15:11:18] - paul: i guess i also am not explaining roth ladder really well: it has *two* benefits in retirement. benefit 1: you get money into the roth pile when paying low taxes. 2. you get money OUT of retirement accounts before 59.5 without the 10% penalty. it's benefit #2 that addresses your current situation. ~a
[2021-10-08 15:07:18] - paul: "I shouldn't be doing any of this" no, i disagree. you shouldn't roth ladder today? that is the only thing you shouldn't be doing today? you can do some of these things in retirement (roth ladder or sepp), and some of these things before retirement (backdoor roth and mega-backdoor roth). only one of the four had any benefit to being in a low tax bracket: and you're only using that one if you're retired, so that makes sense? ~a
[2021-10-08 15:03:38] - a: Our income is surprisingly variable too, for a number of reasons, unfortunately. I tried looking at the past 6 months of CC bills and thrown in mortgage and car payments to get an estimate. -Paul
[2021-10-08 15:00:48] - paul: "I don't get a GOOD sense of how much we spend now" i agree its very hard to track so usually i'll take my total income and subtract my saving and taxes and that gives a pretty good number. ~a
[2021-10-08 15:00:42] - a: "you do it in retirement, when your tax bracket is lower than usual" Right, yes, okay. That's how I thought it worked. So this year, when I am in a high tax bracket, I shouldn't be doing any of this, but maybe 10 years from now if I am not working and my tax bracket is lower, I might consider this (if it is still around). -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:59:19] - paul: "I don't get how it makes sense to transfer money from a 401(k) to a Roth when you are currently in a high tax bracket. Isn't that basically locking in high taxes on those conversions" it does not, no. you do it in retirement, when your tax bracket is lower than usual, to get money out without paying the 10% penalty on top of everything. (sepp also does this in a very different way, but comes with a bunch of rules). ~a
[2021-10-08 14:58:47] - a: And, embarrassingly, I don't get a GOOD sense of how much we spend now. It varies so much year to year (one year we needed a new roof, another year we got solar panels, maybe next year we get a new car....) -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:57:47] - a: I honestly don't remember the number I used. The amount of money I need annually in retirement is probably the biggest variable that I feel least confident about right now. What will taxes look like? How much will insurance cost? What about inflation? Will we spend less because kids are cheaper? Or more because of vacations? -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:54:27] - "Are those monte carlo simulations?" yes. ~a
[2021-10-08 14:54:14] - paul: ok. so 25% is the additive you're using on your untaxed spending to find your tax amount? i've been using 6% for this, but i'll admit that i'm probably about to increase that number some after talking a bit with a retirement planner. ~a
[2021-10-08 14:53:20] - a: "all of them assume you're at least a bit rich already" Then I don't get how it makes sense to transfer money from a 401(k) to a Roth when you are currently in a high tax bracket. Isn't that basically locking in high taxes on those conversions? -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:52:26] - a: Are those monte carlo simulations? I agree my method is crude, but that's why it was "a very rough retirement plan".
-Paul[2021-10-08 14:52:04] - paul: "all depend on taking advantage of years where you are in lower tax brackets, right?" definitely no, not at all. only one of them does. and even that one is a weird situation where it takes advantage of your tax bracket lowering in retirement. so really zero of them depend on you being in a lower tax bracket, in fact i think most or all of them assume you're at least a bit rich already. ~a
[2021-10-08 14:51:29] - a: "right, but how so?" Well, if I assume I want $80k a year in retirement, then I assume something like 25% goes away for taxes so I need 80/0.75 = $106k -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:49:45] - paul: "market return of 6% a year" i would probably suggest against using a simple percent per year plan like this? i've been using simulators like https://www.firecalc.com/ and https://www.cfiresim.com/ (and https://alistair-marshall.github.io/cFIREsim-open/ ) to do a better job of confirming my suspicions about what plans to use and not-use. ~a
[2021-10-08 14:49:43] - a: Also, all this wizardry with backdoor Roths and whatnot all depend on taking advantage of years where you are in lower tax brackets, right? If I am consistently in high tax brackets then it probably never makes sense to do any of these things? -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:48:44] - a: Re: Roth Ladder. I'm trying to read up on it now, but is the main takeaway for pre-59.5 the fact that you can get a fee-less distribution of your contribution from Roth IRAs? -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:47:40] - 3.5% is more conservative than i'm being. if you're less conservative, i think you'll find that you'll have money to retire earlier?
~a[2021-10-08 14:46:31] - paul: "adapting the amount of money I expect to need annually in retirement", right, but how so? divide your tax amount by your total amount? (or something similar?) ~a
[2021-10-08 14:44:21] - a: Safe withdrawal rate of 3.5% and a market return of 6% a year. I tried to account for taxes by adapting the amount of money I expect to need annually in retirement. -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:38:43] - paul: a plan that is much better than paying the early-withdrawal penalty is roth-ladder (not to be confused with roth-backdoor or mega-roth-backdoor). this works only if you have enough traditional-401k and traditional-ira money. second best, still better than paying the early-withdrawal penalty is sepp withdrawal aka "72(t) section 2". ~a
[2021-10-08 14:33:43] - paul: what swr? and how did you account for state+federal taxes in retirement? (when your federal/state taxes decrease in retirement, they won't go to zero) ~a
[2021-10-08 14:33:22] - So, if the hope is to retire early, the "problem" is making it to 59.5. I don't have enough money to last those 20 years right now. I thought about cutting back on my 401(k) contribution to get more money that is accessible now, but it looks like the early withdrawal penalty is just 10%, so maybe I should just leave it be and consider withdrawing early if I get to the point where I can retire early? -Paul
[2021-10-08 14:25:04] - Retirement talk: I recently tried to schedule out a very rough retirement plan. The good news? By the time I can withdraw from retirement funds (IRA / 401(k)) at age 59.5 (in 20 years), my retirement funds should've grown large enough to afford a comfortable retirement even with a fairly conservative rate of return. -Paul
[2021-10-08 02:42:04] - perspective: children should be able to walk and bike to school safely. these intersections are designed to increase throughput of cars instead of moderating speed: skinnier car lanes moderate speed. i checked and 3 injured kids and 1 dead kid in 4 weeks is above average for a city this size. ~a
[2021-10-07 20:35:29] - paul: I haven't. -Daniel
[2021-10-07 15:42:14] - Also, has anybody seen the new Chapelle special? I hear it's controversially offensive, which has me interested in watching it. -Paul
[2021-10-07 15:41:48] - https://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW/ I'm not much of a reddit person, but this looks like a fun way to burn through 15-20 minutes. -Paul
[2021-10-06 19:46:18] - https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-denmark-public-health-health-453163d8f93618fde90c06d3474921a0 Sweden government is.... anti-vax? (Mostly joking! Mostly joking!) -Paul
[2021-10-06 19:30:50] - Sports are back, bars, cruises are going again. I think people try to be a bit more careful on average than like 2019 but I think 2020 when it was new people were either actually in lockdowns or were more willing to not go out. -Daniel
[2021-10-06 19:18:21] - Paul: I guess I'm not super surprised. Delta was worse, people aren't as willing to stay home etc anymore / gathering more. But still sad given the possibility of the vaccine. -Daniel
[2021-10-06 18:49:32] - Daniel: It's really surprising. We have a pretty effective vaccine. One would think most of the most vulnerable people would've already succumbed in 2020. Before I read that I would've guessed the death count was closer to 50% or lower. -Paul
[2021-10-06 17:45:23] - Paul:
-Daniel[2021-10-06 17:41:01] - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-updates/covid-delta-surge/?id=80391228 More Americans died of COVID in 2021 so far than all of 2020. -Paul
[2021-10-06 15:06:41] - mig: I haven't been following it super closely so I don't know a lot of the details currently but I don't think holdouts within a party are unreasonable as a definition. Unreasonable is a tricky word too because what is reasonable for a D from NY or CA is different than WV or AZ. -Daniel
[2021-10-06 13:10:21] - daniel: do you think manchin and simena are the ones being unreasonable in this current standoff? - mig
[2021-10-05 14:37:18] - daniel: i mean this goes all the way back to the blm protests and the casual dismissal of the violence that occurred. It seems like an increasing amount of terrible things like what's happening to Simena get continually excused, downplayed or even actively encouraged as long as it's in service of the "cause", which feels pretty maga-y (maybe Trump-y is a bad word to use). - mig
[2021-10-05 14:32:30] - mig: https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1443926661792210945 Your point on the 2 Democratic senators reminded me of this tweet by Bernie. It's kind of incredible that he's trying to frame a situation where it is 48 senators versus 52 as one where 2 people are unreasonably holding up the will of the majority. -Paul
[2021-10-05 14:02:06] - But putting aside personal behavior (which, granted, is really hard to do), I am having a hard time seeing how the federal government has been performing much better (or differently) with Biden versus Trump. The biggest difference I can see is that we're not seeing as big a deal being made about kids in cages and fractured alliances and corruption and bullying behavior by the media. -Paul
[2021-10-05 13:58:33] - mig: "I don't see too much separation between Biden and Trump at this point" I somewhat agree, but I still think Trump, as a person, was miles worse. He was intentionally rude and bullying and obnoxiously ignorant. -Paul
[2021-10-05 13:35:04] - Those seem worse to me in a long term way more so than normal partisan / political stuff. -Daniel
[2021-10-05 13:34:35] - mig: Can you elaborate on how Trump-y you see the Dem's being? I think they have always had issues with the last few conservative D's in order to get things done. I remember 'Blue Dog Democrats' being a whole thing at one point (though they didn't get followed into the bathroom that I'm aware of). I think part of what made Trump worse on a different level to me was the corruption and undermining of the system as a whole. -Daniel
[2021-10-05 02:09:18] - a: sure thats fair. - mig
[2021-10-04 23:01:40] - you mean the intentionally incendiary tweets. ~a
[2021-10-04 20:56:37] - To be quite frank, I don't see too much separation between Biden and Trump at this point. Biden is just missing the mean tweets. - mig
[2021-10-04 20:55:40] - paul: per the budget/infrastructure, I've been pretty disappointed how Trump-y the democratic party has turned on this. It's been kind of open season on the 2 democratic senators who aren't falling in line, with Sinema in particular getting some pretty nasty treatment (war on women!), with even the GD POTUS glibly dismissing it today. - mig
[2021-10-04 18:26:10] - One of the biggest difference I can think of in terms of policy outcomes would be the response to COVID. Trump's response left a LOT to be desired, but looking at the rest of the world (and the differences between individual states), I wonder about how effective good policy responses can actually be. -Paul
[2021-10-04 18:19:50] - Less corrupt? Maybe? But there's still a lot of sketchiness around Hunter. Better relationship with the international community? Maybe, but France apparently is pretty pissed. I don't know. I had low hopes for a Biden admin and outside of actually getting out of Afghanistan (which I do give them props for), they've still managed to disappoint. -Paul
[2021-10-04 18:16:13] - We'll see how these budget / infrastructure talks go, but I don't have a ton of hope Biden will be significantly better in terms of fiscal responsibility. What else can he hang his hat on? -Paul
[2021-10-04 18:14:37] - mig: Fair, and the reason I ask is as a lead-up to a follow-up question: At what point can we look at the policy outcomes of the Trump and Biden administrations and wonder if Biden has been any better? Regardless of intent, the border situation seems worse. We're out of Afghanistan, but the withdrawal was a disaster. -Paul
[2021-10-04 17:54:17] - paul: I don't know if it's helpful to try and assign a portion of blame to any individual. I kind of blame everybody in this. - mig
[2021-10-04 17:47:49] - daniel: https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1445058378741473292 biden responded to the incident and his response seems ... not great. Calling it inappropriate seems good, but then saying it "happens to everybody" and "it's part of the process" seems pretty dismissive. - mig
[2021-10-04 17:37:05] - a: I watched sc2 streamers / youtube matches more than I used to as well. I'm clearly not as good as them but it can give ideas for openings (where my room to suck doesn't build up as fast) or transitions / responses based on game flow. -Daniel
[2021-10-04 17:04:27] - a: Also, completely unrelated thought, but you mentioned last week that you play Starcraft a few times a week but felt like maybe you weren't getting better. How about try learning a new race, then? You're missing out on 2/3rds the fun if you just play protoss all the time! Also, playing as other races gives you a better idea of the weaknesses of those races. -Paul
[2021-10-04 16:36:40] - Question to the board: How much of COVID's impact on America do you blame on Trump's incompetence? Put another way, if Obama (or insert whatever best president you want in terms of responding to disasters) had been President instead, how many fewer COVID deaths do you think the US would have? -Paul
[2021-10-04 14:46:50] - mig: walking into a bathroom filming is not cool. I do think in general senators aren't enabled to the right to be left alone a lot but this does seem inappropriate. -Daniel
[2021-10-04 14:42:29] - https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1444737615924707331 this is crossing a line, right? - mig
[2021-10-01 16:46:36] - my twitter feed is 50% people fighting the good fight against road widening and 50% someone talking about how his portfolio going down in 2021 is actually a good thing. ~a
[2021-10-01 16:39:24] -
~a[2021-10-01 16:29:55] - a: I mentioned you the other day when I was driving around Austin with my sister and went past some construction where they are widening a road and said I wasn't sure ultimately if that would relieve traffic. -Daniel
[2021-10-01 15:47:40] - looks like they've added traffic circles (sort of) to the drillfield too. i always hated how fast the cars would zoom over the crossing near mcbryde. its supposed to be 15mph there, but i doubt there was much a chance of that back then. ~a
[2021-10-01 15:16:13] - paul: i typed out a huge response, and decided to delete it all and just say this: you've incorrectly defined a walkable community. ~a
[2021-10-01 15:11:30] - a: Sure, the variety of places to eat prepared food was nice. But lots of other things were tough. Movie theater? Groceries? Walmart / Target? An actual non-BK restaurant? Sure, it was more walkable than most other places I have lived in my life, but I don't think that's what made college enjoyable to me. -Paul
[2021-10-01 14:48:10] - another fun-fact, they added a traffic circle AND a new grocery store right next to webb street. ~a
[2021-10-01 14:47:56] - true. ~a
[2021-10-01 14:47:49] - a: a 15 minute is significant if you are carrying a fair amount of groceries. - mig
[2021-10-01 14:45:55] - also fun-fact! kroger was only a 15 minute walk. maybe we were just super lazy??? ~a
[2021-10-01 14:37:49] - paul: "it was often a bit of a pain to get normal things done at Tech like grocery shopping" i guess i remember this so differently from you? i remember getting groceries was something i did way less than once per month when i was on campus. and when i did go grocery shopping, i usually picked up one or two things that could be put in a backpack. ~a
[2021-10-01 14:34:10] - oh man i can't believe i forgot deets place. what was that place next to owens? owens express or something? ~a
[2021-10-01 14:32:52] - paul: yes. don't ask what it was before though, i have no idea. ~a
[2021-10-01 14:32:24] - paul: vt was a much bigger campus than most. but even *we* could walk to the 7-eleven, we could walk to downtown, we could walk to tons of food options (we could walk to owens, we could walk to dietrick, we could walk to dietrick express, we could walk to west end market, we could walk to squires, something something upper quad, and that other student union). we couldn't walk to ONE thing: grocery store. and we took the bus instead! ~a
[2021-10-01 14:27:58] - a: Was the word "dependent" changed in that image? It looks like a different font... -Paul
[2021-10-01 14:20:21] - Re: Title: I don't think the walkable aspect had anything to do with it. In fact, it was often a bit of a pain to get normal things done at Tech like grocery shopping (even sometimes if you did have a car). I think it has more to do with being so close to a bunch of friends with relatively little responsibilities but a lot more freedom. -Paul
[2021-10-01 14:17:56] - daniel: if you liked that title, maybe you'll like this trolley problem: https://i.redd.it/9wytrsn87o971.jpg paul too loves trolley problems! ~a
[2021-10-01 14:16:41] - ah ok. ~a
[2021-10-01 14:16:21] - a: right now sinema is considered a "bad" democrat because she doesn't quite support the 3.5T spending bill that people like AOC want, and her lack of support actually is a stumbling block for it getting passed. - mig
[2021-10-01 14:11:44] - ah ok. why aoc in your example then? ~a
[2021-10-01 14:10:36] - a: she actually is a democrat. - mig
[2021-10-01 13:59:58] - mig: oh, is she a republican? i only skimmed the text. i didn't think it was sexist (thinking it was a democrat). i only thought, "she doesn't really look like that". ~a
[2021-10-01 13:58:50] - daniel: it is hard to have both in virginia. and in texas. outside of college campuses. it's a fixable problem, though. city (and suburb) planners are 100% to blame for this problem. and there are dozens of examples of planners successfully undoing their decades of mistakes. ~a
[2021-10-01 13:58:12] - a: probably not, but I have my suspicions that if the target was different (like say AOC), we'd see plenty of sexism accusations. - mig
[2021-10-01 13:54:36] - yeah that ron paul story is pretty fucked. google has a big customer service problem. they tend to have algorithms deal with banning people, and the algorithms again deal with the appeal process. if no humans are ever involved then you can basically get cut off for doing literally nothing wrong and have no way of fixing it. ~a
[2021-10-01 13:53:37] - mig: oh, i guess "no" then? what do you think? ~a
[2021-10-01 13:53:09] - a: nobody is, just asking an open question. - mig
[2021-10-01 13:52:25] - title: Its the only time I and my entire social circle lived in the same walkable community. Its hard to have both! -Daniel
[2021-10-01 13:50:41] - I'm honestly surprised they rolled back the banning. -Paul
[2021-10-01 13:17:12] - mig: for what reason are people saying it's sexist? ~a
[2021-10-01 12:21:22] - https://robertreich.substack.com/p/being-kyrsten-sinema is the drawing on here sexist? - mig
[2021-09-30 22:25:47] - mig: yes. ~a
[2021-09-30 21:49:36] - https://www.rt.com/usa/536290-ron-paul-youtube-censored/ speaking of ron paul... - mig
[2021-09-30 21:42:09] - a: your company < 100 employees? - mig
[2021-09-30 20:22:16] - mig: i'd also wonder what in the bill made them reject it too. these bills aren't generally simple, short, or clear. (also, a minor quibble, but i'm employed, and don't need to get vaccinated under the proposed osha rule) ~a
[2021-09-30 20:15:09] - https://www.kwwl.com/coronavirus/rep-miller-meeks-introduces-react-act-covid-19-testing-for-migrants-crossing-illegally-into-u/article_765c8434-b298-5fbd-a0d0-0 major caveat is I don't know what was in this bill that would cause democrats to reject it, but I find it very hard to reconcile mandating vaccinations as a condition of employment for citizens with refusing to require covid testing for incoming migrants. - mig
[2021-09-30 18:29:15] - geometry indexes for all of north america in postgis apparently makes my computer from 2014 cry. ~a
[2021-09-30 18:26:58] - (gotcha - i closed the tab and reopened and it still didn't have the comment so I thought it actually didn't go through. Its what I get for not being patient) -Daniel
[2021-09-30 18:01:42] - (daniel: btw, the duplicated posts are totally my fault! i've been doing a lot of high-intensity cpu+memory+io processing on this computer and it makes everything SUPER slow. just don't hit enter twice even if its being lame and slow) ~a
[2021-09-30 17:58:38] - . . . we are both third parties in this case: with a disagreement about the classification of the event. ~a
[2021-09-30 17:57:41] - "Which I guess brings up a more general if A does action Z towards B and B feels threatened then was A threatening them by definition?" i agree with you: hard "no". a third party has to decide. ~a
[2021-09-30 17:56:44] - daniel: i also don't think you are crazy or wrong for thinking it isn't the same. ~a
[2021-09-30 17:56:24] - a: Which I guess brings up a more general if A does action Z towards B and B feels threatened then was A threatening them by definition? I think I say no that someone could feel threatened by me walking down the street at night even without me even knowing they were there or having any ill thought. -Daniel
[2021-09-30 17:54:38] - a: I think I would still lean towards convicting based on the results but I'm still not sure he was threatening (as I define that word). I think threatening is hard for me to do in a car? Like revving my engine or swerving towards you? Somehow driving close doesn't seem like the same to me? I don't think you are crazy / wrong / etc for feeling threatened though. -Daniel
[2021-09-30 17:54:26] - a: I think I would still lean towards convicting based on the results but I'm still not sure he was threatening (as I define that word). I think threatening is hard for me to do in a car? Like revving my engine or swerving towards you? Somehow driving close doesn't seem like the same to me? I don't think you are crazy / wrong / etc for feeling threatened though. -Daniel
[2021-09-30 16:43:10] - daniel: based on some of the things you're saying now, is this still true? "I'm leaning towards I would vote to convict". did i do reverse progress?
~a[2021-09-30 16:42:45] - daniel: "moreso to me than driving close to someone" is there any amount of closeness that would change your mind here? what if you're going 40mph and i'm going 25mph, and you bump me. do you still say "moreso"? ~a
[2021-09-30 16:01:35] - a: moreso to me than driving close to someone. which I think might be part of the difference in our thought. -Daniel
[2021-09-30 15:07:27] - daniel: waving a loaded gun near somebodies face doesn't automatically imply a threat to shoot. do you agree? ~a
[2021-09-30 15:05:18] - daniel: there is an update: "After their investigation, they decided not to charge my client and did not even issue him a traffic ticket". i mean, i'll admit that nothing is set in stone yet, but this assessment by the (defense) attorney is interesting if its true. ~a
[2021-09-30 15:02:58] - a: I guess threaten has an intent component to me somehow? Like he is clearly irresponsibly close or negligently close or some other term but I don't know if he is threatening to run them over in my head. But that might be my internal definitions. -Daniel
[2021-09-30 15:00:57] - a: Yeah I'm just not sure if I think the analogy transfers from a gun to a car for me. Driving close to something / someone doesn't automatically imply a threat to run over. I guess I'm not sure what threatening to run over someone would look like? But just going off that quote from the witness if he thinks the driver isn't trying to hit them that makes me think not threatening to run them over? -Daniel
[2021-09-30 14:43:23] - daniel: "if he had a gun and meant to pistol whip someone and accidentally shot them instead" i didn't notice this sentence before. yeah, this is much closer to how i feel. if you intend to pistol whip someone with a loaded gun, this is a good way of thinking about it. and yeah, you'd probably still get (some sort of lower) murder if they die, and aggravated assault if they don't? ~a
[2021-09-30 14:41:19] - "i didn't intend to shoot anyone" only gets you so far. ~a
[2021-09-30 14:40:02] - daniel: back to the analogy, if you wave a loaded gun in someone face, then shoot them, and * say * it was an accidental discharge, you might be right. you may have not intended to shoot anyone. but you're probably going to still get aggravated assault, right? why is the one leap easy and the other leap difficult? ~a
[2021-09-30 13:50:56] - daniel: "Because he drove close to them?" that is correct. he drove to close to them on purpose. i understand that this might be a leap for you, but it isn't for me. i concluded "on purpose" because of the spraying diesel on them. (spraying diesel is what the article was calling this). ~a
[2021-09-30 13:42:07] - (also feels weird to be defending him in any capacity) -Daniel
[2021-09-30 13:41:29] - a: why do you think he threatened to run them over? Maybe we are defining that term differently? Because he drove close to them? "He clearly didn't mean to hit them, but he was definitely trying to intimidate them and blow smoke on them" - to me I don't translate that as threatened to run them over. -Daniel
[2021-09-29 21:03:46] - daniel: "He wasn't threatening to run them over and then accidentally did" i'm not sure that i agree with your assessment. rolling coal combined with close-pass of a person on foot / person on bike is strictly different than just rolling coal of another car. close-pass without a cab doesn't have a car-equivalent? the something else stupid he was doing was threatening to run them over. but there is some grey area here for sure. ~a
[2021-09-29 19:05:08] - a: I think the gun analogy doesn't quite fit. He wasn't threatening to run them over and then accidentally did. He was doing something else stupid? Like if he had a gun and meant to pistol whip someone and accidentally shot them instead? I'm not sure what the rolling coal equiv is for a gun. -Daniel
[2021-09-29 17:57:09] - daniel: understood. its very similar to how i feel (but not the same). for instance, if it had been a gun, and he had threatened someone with a gun, then pulled the trigger and shot them, it would take quite a lot to sway me at trial. do you agree? ~a
[2021-09-29 17:15:12] - Currently in my head I'm leaning towards I would vote to convict if I was on a jury but I would feel sad about it. I also think I could definitely be swayed at trial potentially. -Daniel
[2021-09-29 17:14:12] - a: I don't know. I mean there are lots of 16 year old drivers who don't do this. There are adult drivers who do dumb things too. Dumb/Asshole people in cars is a bad combo but I'm not sure how you alleviate that. -Daniel
[2021-09-29 17:07:32] - daniel: understood, thank you for answering. it sounds like you are still on the fence about aggravated assault. and i don't blame you, it's a shitty situation either way. but, i'm definitely not on the fence. "clearly not all 16 year olds should have them". can you be more specific?
would you make a specific change if you had the power to? ~a[2021-09-29 17:05:44] - As to the question of 16 year olds and drivers licenses clearly not all 16 year olds should have them. -Daniel
[2021-09-29 17:05:14] - a: Yeah I think I still don't know how I would vote if I were on a jury. Giving a 16 year a felony conviction seems like a pretty big deal. Also almost killing people cause you are an asshole is a pretty big deal. I think the 'justice' answer is conviction but I'm not sure how thats weighed against 'mercy' for someone who isn't an adult yet. -Daniel
[2021-09-29 16:58:39] - daniel: and if so, are you on the fence about 16 year old's getting drivers licenses? ~a
[2021-09-29 16:58:09] - daniel: i understand, thank you for the update. are you still on the fence about aggravated assault for this situation? ~a
[2021-09-29 16:54:21] - daniel: parentheses. people often put parentheses in urls so i have to assume that a close parentheses might be at the end of a url. ~a
[2021-09-29 15:05:10] - not sure how that got so messed up with my copy / paste of the link... -Daniel
[2021-09-29 15:04:48] - a: Looks like the DA is involved / investigating the crash now with the goal of going to a grand jury. So I think there will be more (https://abc13.com/driver-crashes-into-cyclists-waller-county-crash-aggravated-assault-with-deadly-weapon-on-business-290/11053889/) -Danielto the story to come.
[2021-09-28 19:48:21] - daniel: "kids do shoot other people and not get tried as adults though" wait, are you sure this is a similar situation though? where 16 (or older) year old kids shoot other people after threatening them with the same gun? ~a
[2021-09-28 19:46:20] - a: I mean kids do shoot other people and not get tried as adults though. I'm mad at the kid too, just pointing out that he is still a kid. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 19:31:12] - daniel: in virginia you can give allowance to a 16 year old to use a gun. i'm not sure about texas. if the 16 year old threatens someone with a gun, *then* pulls the trigger, i imagine there would be a felony, right? he'd lose his ability to have a gun, but that would just be the beginning of his assault related problems? ~a
[2021-09-28 19:26:54] - daniel: so what about driver's licenses to 16 year old's. if you had asked 16 year old me to decide whether i'd be charged as an adult if something went bad, or not be able to get a driver's license, i'd have to think about it. but, i was able to bike to school when i was 16, so . . . maybe i'm not a good case-study? ~a
[2021-09-28 19:24:54] - Having a car is a big responsibility though that clearly he has shown he isn't ready for regardless of charges / convictions. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 19:24:09] - I don't know whether having a license automatically means you should be tried / treated as an adult. Maybe? Maybe not? I'm not sure and would want to think about it more. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 19:22:51] - a: Oh yeah for sure - its not a facts in question here. Its a age based responsibility thing. Like if he was 18+ I think he is definitely charged and I definitely convict. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 19:21:44] - daniel: "pretty much just because of his age" i guess i agree with you that the age does make it a worse situation for everybody, because its heartbreaking, but if we treat him differently then we definitely shouldn't give 16 year old people driver's licenses in the first place, right? ~a
[2021-09-28 19:20:06] - daniel: based on the names alone, i feel like aggravated assault with motor vehicle or negligent collision, right? i looked up the definition of both in other states (other than in texas) and both seem to fit pretty well. the first one implies you were behaving irresponsibly when it happened. the 16 year old was pretty clearly behaving irresponsibly here? ~a
[2021-09-28 19:12:47] - a: Just if he was charged with felony assault I'd have to think hard about it - pretty much just because of his age - but he should definitely have consequences. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 19:11:07] - what's the decision point there? i'm not aware of what felony conviction means in this context. ~a
[2021-09-28 19:04:37] - a: Yeah I'm not entirely sure where I stand on felony conviction but definitely losing your license seems like a no brainer. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 18:59:43] - " . . . and the police return the reloaded gun to him and send on his merry way" i don't know how to say this exactly, but this makes me kinda mad. ~a
[2021-09-28 18:55:48] - "imagine a 16 year old boy aimed a gun at you, to intimidate you and pulled the trigger, this is what happened, except it was a truck" . . . these situations will get more common. the roads are getting more safe for people in cars, and less safe for people on foot. i'm starting to wonder how bad will things be in 10 or 20 years. ~a
[2021-09-28 18:46:51] - "the reason he couldn’t stop is because he was accelerating to blow more diesel fuel on these cyclists" yep i guess that does track. ~a
[2021-09-28 18:45:12] - a: 16 years old is sad. Dumb kids do dumb things in a big vehicle is very bad. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 18:40:58] - jeese i just noticed the damage to the front of the truck. that must have been humans because i don't think carbon fiber can do that kind of damage. ~a
[2021-09-28 18:40:02] - rolling coal sends six people to the hospital in houston texas. i thought rolling coal was harmless? link apparently the coaler roller has no public charges pending. ~a
[2021-09-28 17:52:40] - DC Smashers is my team name. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 17:52:39] - aaaaaa. ty. ~a
[2021-09-28 17:52:27] - a: fantasy football team names. Paul named his team Hydralisks. Unsure why. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 17:29:33] - i mean, i get that its a football thing, but what's with the hydralisks? ~a
[2021-09-28 17:11:38] - what are we talking about? ~a
[2021-09-28 17:00:41] - Daniel: My team feels due for a massive disappointing game where I am out of it by early Sunday, so congrats in advance for going 4-0! -Paul
[2021-09-28 16:39:55] - But maybe I can get a 40 point game out of Henry and Allen and it will all work out! -Daniel
[2021-09-28 16:39:27] - Paul: I would be more confident if CMC hadn't hurt his leg this week. So takes a bit of the air out of my sails. -Daniel
[2021-09-28 16:21:29] - Daniel: "One streak will conclude in Week 4, as Hydralisks (2-1) enter next week on a two-game unbeaten stretch, while their upcoming opponent (DC Smashers, 3-0), come in having won three straight. After three weeks of action, Hydralisks have accumulated the third-most points in the league while DC Smashers (and their 144.66 points per game) are ranked second." Let's go! -Paul
[2021-09-28 15:45:19] - "it adds zero dollars to the national debt" I'll take the over. -Paul
[2021-09-28 15:41:20] - https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1441924106765602819 bold claim. Pretty Trumpian boast if you ask me. - mig
[2021-09-28 14:44:46] - a: I had no idea! I did a google news search and the nearest thing I could find is some rumors about some former staffer of his maybe doing something with Russians? -Paul
[2021-09-28 14:42:42] - now i'm curious what you were thinking about. ~a
[2021-09-28 13:55:10] - a: https://apnews.com/article/r-kelly-entertainment-arts-and-entertainment-trials-new-york-6fede99231f4d28257725391dae28ebd Oh, this? Sorry, that was at least two degrees removed from whatever I was thinking about.
-Paul[2021-09-28 13:50:54] - think back. to 2007. did we have any inside-jokes about ron paul? ~a
[2021-09-28 13:30:32] - a: Huh? -Paul
[2021-09-28 04:29:30] - paul: ron paul going to jail? ~a
[2021-09-27 18:49:03] - daniel: the rally itself was pro-women on its face. it was the day after inauguration, so uhh, obviously there were some political overtones and the people who attended, obviously, ran the gamut. 100% pro-women. and like 75% anti-trump. but otoh, nothing nearly as political as your average blm or alt-right rally. my cousin is pretty rabid left-leaning person: i mean she lives in missouri and flew to dc for this thing. anyways. ~a
[2021-09-27 18:41:28] - Which then makes it a pretty weak rule I guess. So maybe adults should just be careful with it. Taking a 5 year old to a purely Dem/Rep rally that is super all the party and less about a specific issue maybe is more questionable than taking a kid to some issue based thing? I dunno, I think I'm making a weak argument though I'm still questionable on kids at political events
-Daniel[2021-09-27 18:39:53] - Also showing your kids how to try and make a difference / make your voice heard can be valuable. I know lots of people took their kids to BLM protests / movements / marches / etc. I don't know that is wrong either. I think the principles of kids not being able to be fully cognizant of all the inputs / issues holds but not sure its not outweighed by other concerns? So I think it probably depends on the rally / march / issue? -Daniel
[2021-09-27 18:37:12] - a: It probably depends on how it was framed? That march in general was pretty anti trump? So I think if you are like we are going to celebrate how awesome women are then it maybe not even political? If you are like we are going because we think Trump is going to screw women I think it starts to be slightly more iffy? Also teenagers are definitely different than like a <10 year old kid. -Daniel
[2021-09-27 17:32:43] - daniel: i attended the women's march in 2017 with my cousin and her kid. kid was 13ish. the kid wasn't holding a sign, or promoting a message, or anything like that. she was just there to witness it. thoughts? ~a
[2021-09-27 17:15:11] - I also agree that kids aren't a good idea for political stands. I even question taking kids to political rallies though that isn't uncommon. -Daniel
[2021-09-27 15:30:40] - paul: good point! "she was a little embarrassed" and "kids have been saying not nice things to her" was what i was basing it on. i guess maybe i was reading too much between the lines. ~a
[2021-09-27 15:04:37] - a: Is the kid against the political statement? I don't even know if they know. I think it sucks worse because they're getting picked on because of their parents' political statements. Childhood is rough enough. No need for parents to make things harder. -Paul
[2021-09-27 15:01:33] - yep. this is an even worse situation where the poor kid is against the political statement. ~a
[2021-09-27 13:53:28] - a: I kind of hate using kids to make ANY kind of political statement, even ones I agree with or think are right. They're not old enough to form their own independent opinions separate or critically evaluate what parents tell them. -Paul
[2021-09-27 13:14:28] - yikes ~a
[2021-09-26 02:04:34] - haha thank you! ~a
[2021-09-25 23:16:57] - a: Yup, something like a scandal that invalidates the independence of the panel (like you said, bribery or some such) is about the only reason I could think of. It'll be interesting if we ever get anything. Also, happy birthday! -Paul
[2021-09-24 16:19:35] - just make it an even number and have the politicians decide if its a tie! ~a
[2021-09-24 16:18:54] - in case its not clear i'm on your side here. even if it was 8-7, i'd still want a compelling and public reason for them to go against an 8-7 vote. i mean why even HAVE an odd number if you're going to ignore an 8-7 vote???
~a[2021-09-24 16:15:04] - for instance, the panel was probably not elected, and i have no idea how it was picked. but this panel is not "peer review" level, so i'm not sure how much to trust the panel. ~a
[2021-09-24 16:13:49] - paul: "What could possibly be a good enough reason to override the panel?" ok totally hypothetical and crazy, but it'd have to be at the heart of the panel and their goals and their makeup, but like if it turned out the panel was being bribed, or the panel was inherently biased, or there was otherwise some bullshit scandal or something like that. ~a
[2021-09-24 16:11:49] - paul: yes i agree. most reasons would probably be bad because like you said, an independent panel of experts is exactly who you want deciding this shit. ~a
[2021-09-24 16:10:21] - a: I mean, it would have to be a pretty good reason, right? Isn't the whole point of having an independent panel of experts so you can get the best determination independent of political pressure? What could possibly be a good enough reason to override the panel? -Paul
[2021-09-24 15:58:16] - paul: . . . i'd be fine with them going against the recommendation if they had given a (good and public) reason. do you agree with this? ~a
[2021-09-24 15:52:44] - Daniel: Sure. It could have been worse. The panel could've recommended against it 15-0. But they didn't. It was 9-6. And based on that, the CDC had two choices: Follow the recommendations of an independent panel of experts, or go against it. -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:31:05] - Paul: I would agree there are elements of D's being oversafe on covid but I also think if we had all gone that direction we would be in a better place currently with covid more behind us so between the two it seems like the better way to err? -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:29:32] - Again I think if its 15-0 I think your case would be much better but on a split panel to go with the slightly broader approach doesn't seem like a big departure or "rejecting science". Its not strict adherence to the panel yes. But I don't think your conclusion easily follows (for me). -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:28:26] - -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:28:24] - Paul: "That's kinda rejecting the science, no?" - Kind of? If you have a whole conversation with your doctor and you go back and forth over a surgery and list out pros and cons and the dr is like maybe its safer to do it but ultimately I think you might could get away without it and you choose to do it are you rejecting science or just choosing a more conservative choice or just being willing to deal with the discomfort for a known floor?
[2021-09-24 14:22:34] - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bill-maher-democrats-misinformed-coronavirus Having trouble finding the original poll, but there was one done which indicated that Democrats were wildly off on the estimate of what percentage of people who get COVID will need to be hospitalized. -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:19:40] - Actually, I want to refine my point about "politicizing stuff to rally their own base". I think it's actually more about specifically over and under reactions to COVID. For stupid Trump reasons (Republicans unreasonably love him and Democrats really hate him), Republicans take every opportunity to downplay the seriousness of COVID. But I think there's an aspect of Democrats overplaying the seriousness of COVID too. -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:17:12] - Daniel: I mean, as far as I know, there is no evidence for Ivermectin working OR not working to treat COVID because it hasn't been studied. Yet we feel pretty comfortable calling those people idiots who are rejecting the science even though it's in a similar gray area of "it could work, but probably not". -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:15:25] - Daniel: I get your point, but if an independent panel of experts (ie, "the science") says one thing and you explicitly do the opposite. That's kinda rejecting the science, no? -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:13:44] - a: One vote away from split vote so its at least close?
-Daniel[2021-09-24 14:13:03] - Paul: "both parties just politicizing stuff to rally their own base." - this (sadly) I do agree with. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:12:44] - split vote.
you could have just said 9-6. now we have to debate what constitutes a split-vote! 
~a[2021-09-24 14:12:11] - Daniel: So my point is that it's less about one party following the science and another rejecting it, and more about both parties just politicizing stuff to rally their own base. Republicans have a bunch of people who think COVID is a hoax and vaccines make you magnetic, and Democrats have teachers who don't want to work and people who think vaccines swell your balls.
-Paul[2021-09-24 14:11:51] - Paul: "The problem is that oftentimes the Dems are just as bad at following the science as Reps." - I think this is a bad example of that concept. I don't think extending an booster umbrella slightly further than then panel reccomends on a split vote is rejecting science. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:10:42] - paul: i'm not sure if your second and third things came from the panel. so i'd be weary lumping those last two in. ~a
[2021-09-24 14:10:32] - a: Sure I can agree that they should explain / defend but I think the explanation needed is also proportional to the departure. If the vote was 15-0 and they went against it I would feel different than a 9-6. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:09:47] - Daniel: The science (notably NOT the CDC) says that booster shots aren't necessary, nor are masks among the vaccinated, and schools are not causing outbreaks. -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:08:44] - daniel: hmmm, i disagree with your characterization of the situation. if the cdc seriously departs from the recommendations of the panel, as they have done here, they should do it for a good reason. and they should state their reason. and they haven't. and that's shitty. (maybe they will? but its shitty that they haven't. its the kind of question that often get hashed out in the press briefing.) ~a
[2021-09-24 14:08:36] - Daniel: It's because for the past few years, all we've been hearing is the non-stop cry of "follow the science" in regards to why Dems are so smart and good and Reps are so dumb and evil. The problem is that oftentimes the Dems are just as bad at following the science as Reps. -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:08:33] - a: My point was that it seems like Israel should be worried about their defense being funded by other countries, but I guess I don't know for sure that they are actually dependent on it or if its just a nice bonus. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:06:31] - Daniel: " the scientists said to do one thing (in a 9 to 6 vote), and the cdc decided to do the opposite. following the science was sarcasm." Yeah, what Adrian said. -Paul
[2021-09-24 14:06:06] - daniel: if we add consequential conditions, they'll (probably) just reject the funding. but, i hear you, we do sometimes get something for our foreign aid. was that your point? ~a
[2021-09-24 14:05:54] - Cause if the point is see biden's admin doesn't always follow the science so HA and they are the same as all these other things than I still disagree and would say that Paul is mischaracterizing it. If we are just pointing out that there is still room to dissent while being reasonable then sure. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:04:41] - I don't think that is rejecting the science in the same vein of anti-vax, flat earth , climate deniers though in my head for the CDC to give a bigger booster umbrella than the panel recommended. I get that its technically not strictly following the panel's advice but it doesn't seem like a radical departure either? So partly trying to decide what is behind the sarcasm. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:03:06] - a: Thats mostly what I'm assuming but wanted to clarify. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:02:12] - a: Oh yeah I don't think we currently do, but would seem worrisome to another country that we could. (I was just saying for example that I would). Over time if poltics changes it seems plausible at some point that there do start to be strings attached. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 14:01:42] - daniel: the scientists said to do one thing (in a 9 to 6 vote), and the cdc decided to do the opposite. following the science was sarcasm. ~a
[2021-09-24 14:01:03] - daniel: i wouldn't assume that we put in any seriously consequential conditions. ~a
[2021-09-24 14:00:48] - Paul: I'm confused what you mean by your follow the science quotes. I'm assuming sarcasm on some level but not 100% how you intended it. -Daniel
[2021-09-24 13:59:03] - i guess "why" on both. why didn't aoc vote against it? i thought she was pretty "meh" about helping out israelis unnecessarily. it does also seem weird how helping israel seems to have inverted parties? (8 democrats vs 1 democrat) ~a
[2021-09-24 13:56:35] - -Daniel
[2021-09-24 13:56:33] - a: Yeah - I've had mixed feelings about Israel support for awhile. My other thought was that I think Israel should maybe also not like it? Like if we pay for Israel's defense - doesn't that put a kink in their sovereignty? Like if I were in charge of the US I would be like yes you can have the money but on these conditions A,B,C. Which then they kinda have to accept right? (Or maybe then they didn't need the money in the first place).
[2021-09-24 13:56:16] - sorry "why" about the other thing. why did the cdc do this? ~a
[2021-09-24 13:56:02] - why? ~a
[2021-09-24 13:55:49] - a: Re: Iron Dome. And isn't Israel a fairly wealthy country that could probably afford $1b by itself? It's weird. Not even AOC could muster up the guts to vote against it. -Paul
[2021-09-24 13:54:55] - ouch. ~a
[2021-09-24 13:54:35] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/health/cdc-booster-recommendation-walensky/index.html "Follow the science". -Paul
[2021-09-24 03:23:17] - foreign assistance explorer ~a
[2021-09-24 03:17:32] - so i'm all for foreign aid when it helps us and helps the world, but 1b is kinda high and i'm not sure how it comes anywhere near furthering our goals. ~a
[2021-09-23 15:11:24] - a: If anything, the newer COVID vaccines have less of a history of being proven safe, so it makes more sense to be more cautious. If it's stupid to be anti-vax now, it seems about as stupid to have been anti-vax 5 years ago. -paul
[2021-09-23 15:10:41] - a: "being anti-vaccine during a pandemic and being anti-vaccine in "peacetime" are just different things" In terms of government action? Maybe. But in terms of how much it makes sense on a personal basis? Not sure it does. The evidence for vaccines being safe AND helping people not get sick is pretty solid either way. -Paul
[2021-09-23 14:58:18] - paul: "pro vs ant vaccine breakdown was by party BEFORE COVID": being anti-vaccine during a pandemic and being anti-vaccine in "peacetime" are just different things. the supreme court agrees governments can behave differently about a public health crises things during a public health crisis than during normal times. ~a
[2021-09-23 14:22:46] - https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-matter-greater-york-200600400.html Evidence of below. -Paul
[2021-09-23 14:22:13] - And I really wonder what the pro vs ant vaccine breakdown was by party BEFORE COVID. Wouldn't at all be surprised if the left over-indexed for vaccine hesitancy between the organic / homeo-pathic / hippie crowd and the historical hesitancy of blacks. -Paul
[2021-09-23 14:20:23] - a: Not trying to dredge up past things, but before Trump had his "stop the steal", Stacey Abrams and Hillary Clinton were talking about stolen elections. Republicans are being slammed as anti-vax now, but plenty of prominent Democrats were talking about not taking a vaccine from "Trump's FDA". -Paul
[2021-09-23 14:18:55] - a: "but probably not in the way you think" Yeah, and this is where we disagree. I think you think it's some battle between good (voting for all!) and evil (anti-democracy!) when I think it's more about highlighting the good in one side and the evil in the other. -Paul
[2021-09-23 14:15:31] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/politics/daniel-foote-haiti/index.html Differences in motivation aside, at what point can we start to have the discussion about which administration was more hostile to refugees / migrants? Trump's or Biden's? -Paul
[2021-09-23 14:13:48] - kids in fucking cages. - mig
[2021-09-23 14:08:26] - paul: "votes for [people]!" ~a
[2021-09-23 14:06:47] - paul: (re rbg) i totally agree with you. it was an awkward change. i'm sure they could have found a different quote from rbg . . . it's kinda her job to make quotes like this. ~a
[2021-09-23 14:05:02] - paul: "bake a gay wedding cake", a more serious answer would probably list a few ways that these two scenarios are different. (faang content moderation and cake scenario) i'll admit there are a few similarities, but there are also a few differences. ~a
[2021-09-23 14:01:28] - paul: nah. i'll agree they're biased, sure. but probably not in the way you think. i don't think that being pro-everybody-voting and anti-public-health-crisis is the same thing as being pro-liberal. the fact that republicans have backed both anti-democracy (quite literally) and anti-vaccination at the same time is just one of those things that we'll laugh about one day. ~a
prev <-> next