prev <-> next
[2021-12-20 16:35:20] - Paul: Disagree. -Daniel
[2021-12-20 16:34:24] - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1472941610019299330/photo/1 Random aside, but the second paragraph is... oof. I thought we kicked out Trump in favor of Biden so the civilized adults were back in charge. That sounds like something the Trump WH would've put out. -Paul
[2021-12-20 16:27:41] - Daniel: Yeah, I can see the difference, but from somebody detached from the two-party hate-fest, it's a little tough to see a bunch of prominent Democrats being very open about mistrusting the COVID vaccine... and contrasting that with the loud calls now from prominent Democrats (in some cases the same ones) that the very same vaccines should be mandatory. -Paul
[2021-12-20 16:23:46] - mig: Heh, I think I get what you're saying, but the implication is that Biden and Cuomo are fringy batshit people.
-Paul[2021-12-20 14:53:51] - paul: the initial vaccine hesitancy from democrats did very much feel like "orange man bad"-ing. At the same time, I think it did stay mostly within the fringy batshit people, while republican vaccine hesitancy has been unfortunately kind of mainstreamed among that side. - mig
[2021-12-20 14:35:49] - Paul: I can see a case for a similarity? I think Trump is unique in his un-trustworthiness but I think some people see that as partisan distrust and then see distrust of Biden as the same but I don't think Trump is the same as any modern president that I'm aware of. -Daniel
[2021-12-19 17:39:34] - Daniel: I can't remember, did you say you would be planning SC2 this coming week still or are you taking the week off? -Paul
[2021-12-19 17:39:15] - Daniel: Do you see any similarity in your distrust of the vaccine and current Republican distrust of the vaccine under Biden? -Paul
[2021-12-17 19:34:41] - So it probably wasn't helpful but I also wouldn't trust Trump at all either. Soooo not sure where that lands. -Daniel
[2021-12-17 19:34:08] - I think it depends on how its phrased? I mean I think you are right that mostly CDC staff and stuff are the same though I think there might be a new head of CDC under Biden? I think in general its just the issue of making sure Trump didn't pressure stuff and that the experts in the room are actually comfortable with the vacinne / effects. -Daniel
[2021-12-17 18:58:16] - Daniel: Adrian is correct, my family has plans to go (minus the youngest). We found a showing early in the day that was emptier and we're pulling the kids out about an hour early so we can see it. -Paul
[2021-12-17 18:57:25] - Daniel: So do you think the hesitancy was justified at the time (ie, pre-Biden's election)? If so, what changed your mind? I imagine most of the people at the CDC/FDA are the same regardless of the administration in power. Is it because the Biden admin said it was safe and effective? -Paul
[2021-12-17 18:38:06] - paul is. ~a
[2021-12-17 18:37:52] - Anyone going to see Spiderman in the theater? I'm thinking about it but looking at the tickets for it online is daunting to see how full every showing is
-Daniel[2021-12-17 18:03:39] - Like I am not a fan of Bush but I don't think he would try to shove a vacinne through just to get credit for it. Or Romney or McCain. I kind of 100% think Trump would do that if given a chance with no to little thought on the actual effects of the vaccine. -Daniel
[2021-12-17 18:01:56] - paul: re dems&vacinnes I think its a mix of sad/annoyance that politics so easily gets in the way of science / truth. And understanding that of all recent politicians Trump is the one I trust the least to not try and shove something through in a way that is bad. I think under any other R administration I don't think I would have had that same concern. -Daniel
[2021-12-17 17:52:11] - a: For awhile I was about 50/50 in my Vanguard funds. For individual stocks.... that's an interesting question. Some of my largest holdings are headquartered outside the US (SHOP, MELI, SE) -Paul
[2021-12-17 17:51:23] - a: I've often thought of international as higher risk, but also higher reward, so I've usually been overweight on international exposure in my vanguard funds because I wanted that more aggressiveness. -Paul
[2021-12-17 17:49:38] - paul: right, i know you're joking, but without hindsight, zero was the wrong percentage. ~a
[2021-12-17 17:48:49] - a: For the past few decades, I guess it should've been zero. Hindsight for the win! -Paul
[2021-12-17 17:48:26] - https://twitter.com/JeremyKappell/status/1471612744914939904 Not trying to troll, but genuinely curious what people think of these admissions of vaccine hesitancy from prominent Democrats (presumably all taken during Trump's administration). Silly politicization of COVID/the vaccine? Warranted concern? -Paul
[2021-12-17 17:47:56] - yep. i often wonder what my international exposure percentage should be. ~a
[2021-12-17 17:47:14] - International has lagged for SO long. There has maybe been an isolated year or two where it has done better, but I feel like it's been decades of the US outperforming international stocks. -Paul
[2021-12-17 16:09:59] - Yeah I guess I'm too international heavy this year with my picks - if I'd gone with a more 'normal' domestic heavy picks I think I'd be doing better. -Daniel
[2021-12-17 16:08:07] - paul: Yeah I don't think I'll ever outright win a stock challenge but I think this is the best relative performance so far. -Daniel
[2021-12-17 16:04:24] - maybe that's a lesson in and of itself? even index fund people can "lose out" (to a smaller degree) when picking funds. ~a
[2021-12-17 15:50:23] - uh, yeah? i'm still losing to vti. still sorta even losing to vt. i think daniel (or herndon) could have taken 1st place this year if he had picked normal index funds
~a[2021-12-17 15:39:31] - a: Hah, fair point. I keep forgetting how incredible your portfolio has been this year so far. Our competition was over long ago. -Paul
[2021-12-17 15:04:05] - he's in a solid 2nd place among us three. ~a
[2021-12-17 15:03:38] - paul: "2021 is going to be a win" win? he isn't beating me. yet. ~a
[2021-12-17 14:17:11] - Daniel: Beginning to look a lot like 2021 is going to be a win (your first?) for the index fund crowd. It's a shame that the first year I get a lot of entries is the year everybody sucks at it.
-Paul[2021-12-17 14:16:25] - Daniel: My team has mostly been spared from the COVID disaster going around. Glad the playoffs aren't this week. Would've sucked to have it marred by this. -Paul
[2021-12-17 14:14:08] - The night of my booster shot, I slept for 14 hours (and would've slept for more) and still ended up going to bed at my normal time the next night. Also had a headache and pretty sure I had a fever. Other than that, I was fine.
-Paul[2021-12-16 21:54:56] - also another Oof day for fantasy investing. -Daniel
[2021-12-16 21:50:56] - Fantasy Football is crazy this week dealing wtih Covid. Yikes! -Daniel
[2021-12-16 21:23:43] - my booster shot just made me really tired and maybe a slight headache. Nothing to bad but more tired than normal for sure. -Daniel
[2021-12-16 21:15:37] - paul: yes! i uhhh, was mostly fine yesterday. just feeling a bit woozy. i couldn't tell if that was lack of sleep, or booster, or what, but decided i'd just go to bed. i'm 100% today, and honestly, i'm not sure if i've felt the vaccine-side-effects yet. if i have, it was pretty mild. ~a
[2021-12-16 20:12:49] - a: Feeling better? The booster shot kicked my butt and I felt it around 8-28 hours after getting it. -Paul
[2021-12-15 17:15:11] - paul: i know i've linked this image before (i made it, and it was accepted by some random person on the internet). even if the data is wrong . . . i'm not a data-scientist . . . the logic behind what i feel is sound: look at the worst-cases, within some definition of "reason", and plan around those? ~a
[2021-12-15 16:47:19] - paul: "That's why you are talking about 95th percentiles?" correct. i think "best chance" (from your comment) is the absolute wrong thinking. you need to be looking at the "best chance in the worst 5% of situations for stocks over 5 years" or something similar to that. you'll find that if you optimize for the 5% of the worst case for stocks over 5 years, then a bond-ratio of 1% or more makes much more sense. ~a
[2021-12-15 16:47:17] - paul: i maybe confused 95 with 5, oops. is 95 supposed to be good? ~a
[2021-12-15 16:46:24] - No, I agree. It's pretty joker level crazy. But I make similar crazy predictions like somebody will buy Nintendo so is this one really that different? Probably. -Paul
[2021-12-15 16:44:06] - paul: "I am wondering if predicting 22% inflation is TOO bold" write it if you want. i would not make that claim, there's like less than a 1% chance of that happening, but differing minds can come up with differing predictions. ~a
[2021-12-15 16:41:03] - paul: An inflation rate of 22% would seem joker level of crazy. -Daniel
[2021-12-15 16:40:55] - a: For context on the 22% inflation rate thing, I'm writing my recklessly bold predictions for 2022 and I am wondering if predicting 22% inflation is TOO bold. I kind of think it is, but I am looking for an inflation prediction and like using a number related to 2022. -paul
[2021-12-15 16:39:55] - a: You're making an argument of adding bonds to balance my portfolio of mostly equities? That's why you are talking about 95th percentiles? -paul
[2021-12-15 16:37:26] - paul: 9.5. ~a
[2021-12-15 16:37:02] - paul: yes, yes, you are crazy.
"best chance" is *totally* the wrong way of looking at the problem. you need to instead look at the 99th percentile (or around there, maybe 95th percentile). what has the best chance of outperforming inflation in the 95th percentile case of stock market returns after 5 years? it is bonds. always. ~a[2021-12-15 16:36:15] - Also, I need a gut check. On an insanity level of 1-10 where 1 is mildly weird and 10 is Joker from Batman.... what would you all consider a prediction of an inflation rate of 22% in 2022? -Paul
[2021-12-15 16:35:18] - I keep getting tempted by iBonds, but I feel like long term, equities still have the best chance of outperforming inflation and lots of stocks are a lot cheaper than they were a few months ago. Am I crazy? -Paul
[2021-12-15 16:04:55] - hah. $10*1.04**-10 is still $7. ~a
[2021-12-15 16:03:48] - 10 dollars after 10 years of inflation might not be worth much. -Daniel
[2021-12-15 15:55:02] - a: Sure, I'll take the other side of that bet, but I do want to note I don't feel very strongly about this one. Think I could easily lose, but I do think in 10 years we will have more self driving cars on the road than you think. -Paul
[2021-12-15 15:53:28] - But still, yeah, doesn't strike me as a great policy. -Paul
[2021-12-15 15:53:15] - So, I'll defend twitter in this one tiny way: They said, "false OR misleading claims" (emphasis added). I have seen a tweet making the rounds (mostly to get mocked) stating that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can spread the virus. You could argue that's pretty misleading since it leaves out the fact that one group is far more likely to spread it. -paul
[2021-12-15 15:47:00] - a: You do seem invested in making this a bet - lol. -Daniel
[2021-12-15 15:46:26] - paul: oh, i guess i should make it more obvious that you're taking the positive position (50% or more), and i win otherwise? ~a
[2021-12-15 15:44:18] - paul: hmmm. i still wanna bet (man, maybe i have a gambling problem). i wanna make it a low-value bet because of how non-convinced i am. $10, 10 years (2031-12-15), 50% of motor-vehicles on the road (by vehicles? by miles? whichever we can find data for in the recent-ish "past"?) are in a self-driving mode for at least part of the ride. united states. ~a
[2021-12-15 15:41:00] - paul: seems fairly obviously bad to me too. maybe if there was some hard-proof that vaccinated people couldn't spread covid? ~a
[2021-12-15 15:39:57] - paul: Yeah that seems like a weird/bad twitter policy. Maybe if its used as justification not to get vaccinated? Or something? -Daniel
[2021-12-15 15:34:40] - https://www.mediaite.com/news/twitter-to-penalize-users-who-claim-vaccinated-people-can-spread-covid-19/ Not even entirely sure what snarky comment to make here about misinformation on social media. -Paul
[2021-12-15 15:34:14] - a: Yeah, I guess I am not quite as optimistic as your dad. I do think there's a good chance we're over 50%, but it feels like there's a big variation in what could happen. I wouldn't be surprised if it was anywhere between like 10% and 90% honestly.
-Paul[2021-12-15 15:30:57] - paul: ok, i wouldn't bet on 50% (on the negative side) either, so i doubt we'll be able to come together on a workable bet. my dad, on the other hand, is super convinced, on something i think is over-the-top crazy, but doesn't like making bets i guess. ~a
[2021-12-15 15:28:53] - paul: "Human drivers can be pretty bad too" agreed. "isn't that a case of anecdotal evidence versus somebody who has access to the millions of miles of evidence in total". what you say is true. but, i have to have blind-faith that musk will faithfully interpret and relay that evidence, don't i? why should i do that? musk is known for being an conic over-promiser, so all of this blind-faith is not backed in sound logic. ~a
[2021-12-15 14:56:51] - a: "but also much less than a 50% chance" I don't know what number I would go with. 50% is a pretty drastic shift considering we are at basically 0% now, but 10 years is also a long time. I don't think I would bet we would get to 50%, but any number lower than that I would have to pause and think. -Paul
[2021-12-15 14:55:32] - a: "definitely 100% worse than human drivers" I don't necessarily doubt you, but isn't that a case of anecdotal evidence versus somebody who has access to the millions of miles of evidence in total? Human drivers can be pretty bad too. -Paul
[2021-12-15 14:54:02] - Daniel: No, sorry. I have been looking into it, but the fact that it is Windows only is a limiting factor. For whatever reason, I don't play a lot of single player games on PC. I've had Telling Lies on my queue for forever and haven't even loaded it up yet. -Paul
[2021-12-15 07:06:01] - paul: You ever try Inscryption? -Daniel
[2021-12-14 22:31:04] - paul: "concerned that we might be far apart in terms of how we're defining the levels" i'm not terribly concerned . . . we can always push if it isn't clear. what's more, i'd even push if inflation makes the difference. ~a
[2021-12-14 20:47:09] - CGP Grey posted a video about 'testing' a self driving Tesla today and while it did well enough it made me very nervous to watch it driving on a very twisty highway. -Daniel
[2021-12-14 20:46:49] - paul: "What percent chance do you think that 90%+ of cars on US roads are self driving in 2031" less than 100% chance (which is what my dad argued). but also much less than a 50% chance. also i'm willing to bet on this (even odds). i proposed the bet to my dad and he declined. ~a
[2021-12-14 20:44:19] - paul: "Musk is on record saying it is and I tend to believe him" i would normally nod in agreement with this but i've seen it IRL and its BAD. not iffy but BAD. definitely 100% worse than human drivers. ~a
[2021-12-14 20:44:03] - -Daniel
[2021-12-14 20:44:02] - Also as a note I think thats more about elections / campaigning / personal attacks type of stuff. I'm not sure that legislative strategies is covered by that sentiment? I mean I think things like getting rid of the filibuster or packing the court or whatever are obviously questionable but I wouldn't consider them really applicalble to the idea of "going low" in tems of they go low and we go high. Same with adopting TX legal strat here.
[2021-12-14 20:03:51] - paul: "What happened to 'they go low and we go high'?" that depends on your definition of low? this is definitely not low. i.e. not-doing-it-would-be-irresponsible is not low. also: i never said that. (but i do believe in it). ~a
[2021-12-14 19:31:55] - a: I still feel good about our bet, although if there is one thing that concerns me about it is this "transitory" inflation. I might lose badly because of the prices we set. I am concerned that we might be far apart in terms of how we're defining the levels of self driving and those levels don't seem to be using used in reference to cars much anymore. -Paul
[2021-12-14 19:30:29] - "100% chance that all cars on the road will be self-driving in 10 years (2031)" Are we talking US only? I suspect even in the most extreme scenario there will still be carve outs for those who want to drive their own cars, so can I rephrase the question? What percent chance do you think that 90%+ of cars on US roads are self driving in 2031? -Paul
[2021-12-14 19:29:06] - And I also understand the limitations that self-driving is restricted to certain carefully managed use cases. -Paul
[2021-12-14 19:28:07] - I don't get all the hate for self driving. Is it perfect? Obviously not. Is it still dangerous? Yup. But you know what else is dangerous? Human driving. Is self-driving safer than human driving right now? Who knows? I think Musk is on record saying it is and I tend to believe him, but I'm open to the idea we're not there yet. -Paul
[2021-12-14 19:26:29] - a: "you'll admit that very few people feel this way, right?" Absolutely. I am well aware of how fringe my views are and how nobody agrees with me.
-Paul[2021-12-14 19:25:53] - a: "except your pow analogy, that was dumb" How so? "saying that the tactic is outrageous and then using it is exactly what you should do" Hard disagree. What happened to "they go low and we go high"? -Paul
[2021-12-14 14:58:24] - paul: on that note, this saturday is december 18th. in regards to our bet that ends in four years (!): 2025-12-18. amazingly every year i feel a bit better about this bet (from a winning perspective only, i am sad that self-driving won't happen any time soon). ~a
[2021-12-13 21:49:48] - paul: self driving is dumb. i definitely would NOT buy one of these t-shirts (they are dumb), but i do like that pop-culture is clued in to the fact that AI research is waaay behind where musk wants it to be. (!!!) my dad just told me that there is a 100% chance that all cars on the road will be self-driving in 10 years (2031). he is crazy. ~a
[2021-12-13 21:49:04] - paul: . . . true, what is legal don't define principles for me. i know you think an employer should be able to fire an employee for literally any reason they want. you'll admit that very few people feel this way, right? i think an employer should be able to fire people for ALMOST any reason. there's just like a few reasons i'm not ok with (and most people agree with me). i know there isn't just ONE set of "reasons" we can agree on. ~a
[2021-12-13 21:29:53] - paul: uuuuh, fair all around? (except your pow analogy, that was dumb). also: saying that the tactic is outrageous and then using it is exactly what you should do. it's literally your job: if your constituents demand something, you do everything in your legal arsenal to complete the task. it's kinda like being beholden to shareholders, except, you know, different. ~a
[2021-12-13 14:06:16] - a: "one of them is illegal, and one is not?" You mean the firing or the being naked? Regardless... does whatever is currently legal define principles for you? Like, before gay marriage was legal it was different in principle from straight marriage because one was legal and one wasn't? -Paul
[2021-12-13 14:02:00] - a: But, yeah, I do kinda think if you think some tactic is outrageous then maybe you shouldn't do it? Sure, if the enemy starts executing POWs then it might be tempting to start executing yours as well but I'm not sure that makes it morally right or even a good idea. -Paul
[2021-12-13 14:00:50] - a: "blessed by the literal supreme court" I'm not super familiar with the case, but I don't think the Supreme Court has blessed it (and to be pedantic, I don't think it's fair to ever say they bless things as much as say whether or not they are unconstitutional, which seems like a big distinction) as much as said it's not clearly bad enough to warrant an emergency stop. Didn't they say lawsuits can proceed? -Paul
[2021-12-13 06:15:13] - paul: "the same in principle, no?" no. one of them is illegal, and one is not? ~a
[2021-12-13 04:24:38] - paul: if a new legal avenue opened up, blessed by the literal supreme court, wouldn't it be irresponsible * not * to use it to get what your constituents demand? ~a
[2021-12-13 03:01:34] - "I am outraged by yesterday's US Supreme Court decision" followed by "California will use that authority". The decision was so outrageous that California can't wait to use it for causes they care about! -Paul
[2021-12-13 03:00:04] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/us/california-gun-control-texas-abortion-legal-tactics/index.html This is kinda what I mean about how the constant escalation by both parties (with the excuse the other side started it) isn't responsible governance. -Paul
[2021-12-13 02:56:58] - a: "we really need to come up with a better word than mandatory" Yeah, a mandate sounds pretty definitive. Of course, we also probably need more nuance for things like anti-vaxxer and "fully vaccinated" (now that there are boosters). -Paul
[2021-12-13 02:55:38] - a: "i know what you're saying, but those two situations are different" Right, obviously different, but the same in principle, no? Like, why is it legal to fire somebody for wanting to work naked but not for a man wanting to wear a dress? Because one is "more reasonable" than the other? -Paul
[2021-12-10 20:25:14] - same deal for international flights. showing a vaccine card has literally always how it has been at *many* international passport control stations. since forever. ~a
[2021-12-10 20:24:22] - paul: "Does the greater good outweigh violating principles?" in some cases, violating principles doesn't even apply! we've always had this principle: if you wanna attend public school, or a private college, you gotta get your vaccines. it's been that way since forever. so does the greater good outweigh nothing? or less than nothing since it was already a principle? yes!
~a[2021-12-10 20:17:54] - paul: "What if somebody wanted to work naked and refused to wear clothes? Is that a valid reason for firing them?" yep. i mean, i know what you're saying, but those two situations are different. ~a
[2021-12-10 19:32:37] - paul: on that note, we really need to come up with a better word than mandatory so we can be more specific. maybe air-flight-mandatory, military-mandatory, federal-government-worker-mandatory, public-school-mandatory, concert-mandatory? i'm not sure they should all be treated the same? nobody NEEDS to take a flight, and flying around the country is exactly how viruses like covid are spread. ~a
[2021-12-10 19:31:55] - paul: "I imagine there's another side where you might be uncomfortable with vaccine mandates for far less deadly things?" omg fuck yes. but also i'm not happy with 100% of covid mandates. i'm still very on the fence about requiring all companies over 100+ employees to mandate vaccinations. ~a
[2021-12-10 19:04:39] - a: Obviously this scenario isn't as extreme on either end, but the basics are the same. I imagine I would draw the line somewhere. I imagine there's another side where you might be uncomfortable with vaccine mandates for far less deadly things? -Paul
[2021-12-10 19:03:09] - a: I think of it a bit like the hypothetical where you could cure cancer and save millions of lives, but you need to kill somebody to do it. Does the greater good outweigh violating principles? Maybe? -Paul
[2021-12-10 18:56:52] - a: "would a hypothetical change your views on being anti-mandate?" It's a really good question and one of the thornier issues for libertarians who believe in the non-aggression principle to wrangle with. People should be free to do whatever they want (or not want) to their body, but spreading a virus IS aggression on some level. -Paul
[2021-12-10 18:55:20] - a: "i'll stand by my wording, even though i know you disagree" That's fine, and I know you disagree, but let me play devil's advocate: We mentioned nudity before. What if somebody wanted to work naked and refused to wear clothes? Is that a valid reason for firing them? -Paul
[2021-12-10 18:40:59] - paul: in a libertarian-utopia, wouldn't we be suing people for giving us the virus? that might be hard to even orchestrate, when you don't always know who gave you the virus. ~a
[2021-12-10 18:37:59] - paul: would a hypothetical change your views on being anti-mandate? hypothetically, if it started killing at 5x its current rate (1% of the whole nation per year), would you consider a mandate to be reasonable for the situation? or 100x (15% of US/year)? or 600x (everybody dies)? i.e. where is the line for you? i'm reminded of the franklin quote about purchasing temporary security, (that quote is usually taken out of context). ~a
[2021-12-10 18:28:46] - paul: "you are saying the law should force you to hire somebody that you think dresses weirdly" that's right. and i'll stand by my wording, even though i know you disagree. ~a
[2021-12-10 18:27:45] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer TIL I am an anti-vaxxer. I would say it is ironically the same day I got my third COVID shot, but honestly I heard about this yesterday so it's more "YIL". -Paul
[2021-12-10 18:00:11] - a: I would submit your fourth example is not being phrased properly. Put another way, you are saying the law should force you to hire somebody that you think dresses weirdly. -Paul
[2021-12-10 17:59:19] - a: "i'm not sure why i would have said anything that would make you think otherwise" Not directed at you. "you seem to only be seeing one side of this though?" I am? Which of the other things you listed do you think I support? Laws against electric bikes? Laws against changing your gender? Laws regulating who you choose to start your family with? -Paul
[2021-12-10 16:52:09] - paul: "everybody needs to think the same way". you seem to only be seeing one side of this though? we ARE told to think electric bikes are wrong (by law). and that cars are right (by law). and that changing your gender is wrong (by law). and that firing someone for wearing the wrong gender of clothes is right (allowed by law). and that who you choose to start a family with can be wrong (by law, but this has changed recently). ~a
[2021-12-10 16:47:41] - paul: i agree with your point about legality, but i'm not sure why i would have said anything that would make you think otherwise. ~a
[2021-12-10 16:32:33] - a: Part of what frustrates / concerns / annoys me is this thinking from some people that everybody needs to think the same way. We all need to think that ripped jeans and mohawks and electric bikes are completely normal and not at all weird.
-Paul[2021-12-10 16:30:51] - a: "i do like to flip the script though" I don't think I follow? Of course trans people can think my lifestyle is boring and weird. Boring and weird lifestyles shouldn't be illegal nor should others be forced to think they're normal and/or exciting. -Paul
[2021-12-10 16:10:40] - mig: so . . . what are the concerns? i'm not sure if i've seen any that seemed based on any sort of (non-hypocritical) issue. the issues proposed seem to come from a place of ignorance, do you agree? ~a
[2021-12-09 22:34:14] - agreed. ~a
[2021-12-09 22:29:00] - or at least A goal. - mig
[2021-12-09 22:28:24] - sure, there are hopeless cases. But I think on this issue, it probably should be the goal. - mig
[2021-12-09 22:26:46] - mig: "and that's the goal, yes?" no. not always. some people are truly hopeless (and i'm sure many would consider me the same from their perspective) ~a
[2021-12-09 22:26:43] - And obviously, there are lib owning republican responses to this that aren't helpful either. - mig
[2021-12-09 22:25:05] - a: they may be overblown, or even trolling. But having the first response to any concerns being "stop being a cis transphobic piece of shit!", isn't a good strategy for trying to change minds (and that's the goal, yes?) - mig
[2021-12-09 21:50:45] - mig: the concerns when it comes to abuse relating to transgendered people almost always have the transgendered person as the victim, not the perpetrator. do i call this transphobia? no. but it does seem ignorant. ~a
[2021-12-09 21:49:06] - mig: "concerns about (particularly women and children) should be simply dismissed as 'transphobic'", although i agree with you in principle, we might disagree on the specifics? these concerns might be . . . trolling. or more likely, just plain overblown. something like 100% (with probably some round-off error) of sexual abusers are non-transgendered. ~a
[2021-12-09 21:40:19] - the government agrees it won't put S for stupid on marjorie taylor greene's passport if people are allowed to put M or F in the "gender" section of their passports. ~a
[2021-12-09 21:31:57] - paul: i do like to flip the script though. trans people are allowed to think that your boring lifestyle is weird. on the other hand, we all probably shouldn't make your boring lifestyle illegal
i guess we should allow some cars on the road, but only if they promise to stop killing people. ~a[2021-12-09 20:45:38] - a: "you're willing to accept that most people have trouble with this duality right???" Oh, absolutely. -Paul
[2021-12-09 20:04:51] - "but in practice if enough people don't like a thing, it becomes illegal", I see this as happening less and less these days. - mig
[2021-12-09 20:03:21] - Especially since it won't take much in the way of real world incidents to harden their positions. - mig
[2021-12-09 19:59:27] - paul: "I also think it's fine for me ... to think it's weird", you're willing to accept that most people have trouble with this duality right??? *most* people are like: if i don't like it, it NEEDS to be illegal. i agree with your thought. it shouldn't matter if people like it or hate it when it comes to laws. but in practice if enough people don't like a thing, it becomes illegal (see a million examples throughout history). ~a
[2021-12-09 19:59:21] - a: I don't feel very strongly about bathroom usage either (though personally, I just dislike going to the bathroom with other people, period), but I don't think concerns about (particularly women and children) should be simply dismissed as "transphobic", since I don't think it's productive. - mig
[2021-12-09 19:52:16] - a: "i'm not sure i love our culture's feelings on nudity" It's hard to form a good libertarian policy against people walking around naked. Indecency laws? Ew. -Paul
[2021-12-09 19:51:36] - a: But, and I think this is the key differentiator for many people, I also think it's fine for me (and others) to think it's weird. -Paul
[2021-12-09 19:51:11] - a: "and you don't think that's "weird"?" It really depends on how people are dressing. I mean, I think most of the people on "Project Runway" dress weird, but that's because I don't understand fashion. I think ripped jeans are weird. And yes, I think biological men wearing dresses is a weird as well. But I think all of those people should be allowed to dress as they do. -Paul
[2021-12-09 19:50:55] - ha. well that's a bit off-topic, but i'm not sure i love our culture's feelings on nudity. ~a
[2021-12-09 19:48:38] - a: "do you think biological women should be allowed to dress however they want? and men?" Sure! I mean, I guess maybe there could be a consideration of being completely naked or something, but I don't think that's what you are getting at. -Paul
[2021-12-09 18:58:38] - paul: do you think health insurance should deny coverage for any of these behaviors? do you think trans people should be required to have (to them) the incorrect gender written on their driver's licenses and passports etc? ~a
[2021-12-09 18:58:15] - paul: how very moderate of you. ok, well i have a hard time faulting you for that position. how about more questions then? stop me if i've asked too many
do you think biological women should be allowed to dress however they want? and men? and you don't think that's "weird"? and that they can't be discriminated for doing this in the workplace? you think the police should be required to protect them from harassment? ~a[2021-12-09 18:54:53] - a: I don't feel as strongly about this as a lot of people do. I'm mostly for whatever makes the most people the most comfortable. I'm honestly not sure what arrangement that would be. -Paul
[2021-12-09 17:34:31] - paul: do you think your biological sex should decide which public bathroom you go into? (for the sake of argument, please don't redesign bathrooms) ~a
[2021-12-09 17:33:56] - a: "why can't gender be a subset of personality?" I don't think that's a fault, it's just a difference in terms. I mean, a theist could say, "What can't God just be the rules of science?" Sure, but I don't think most people are using the term "gender" to mean that. To them, it seems pretty closely tied to lots of other stuff. -Paul
[2021-12-09 17:32:12] - a: I think that's as good as description as any for me. Maybe gender-agnostic? -Paul
[2021-12-09 17:20:40] - paul: this person made a similar retort: (they were already talking about language, so bringing language into the conversation was not out of left-field) "OK but I would take a beat from Chomsky here. Language is clearly in the structure of the human brain while one's specific language is influenced by culture, personality etc. Gender is almost certainly like that too." ~a
[2021-12-09 17:18:13] - paul: "i ... don’t believe there is anything other than our biology and personalities". her statement has a big logical fault: why can't gender be a subset of personality? ~a
[2021-12-09 17:16:06] - agenderist, if we're making up words? ~a
[2021-12-09 17:15:12] - paul: are you a gender-atheist? (also, bit of a nit-pick, but theos means god, so its a bit of a stretch to use this word here) ~a
[2021-12-09 16:17:00] - https://twitter.com/SarahTheHaider/status/1468259029726244872 Not sure why I never thought of this, but I like the term, "gender-atheist" when it comes to the idea of gender being separate from sex/biology. -Paul
[2021-12-08 18:28:43] - a: I enjoyed the plan when I had it, though. If I ever get to pick my own insurance again I'll likely go with a HDHP+HSA. -Paul
[2021-12-08 18:27:45] - a: It does seem a little weird that we've all had HDHPs in the past, although I guess we all have pretty extensive work histories. I only had mine for a few years because when I moved Gurkie onto my health insurance, she preferred stuff that covered more. She tends to be a higher user of healthcare than I. -paul
[2021-12-08 18:26:30] - a: She's now in charge of the family's retirement funds. -Paul
[2021-12-08 18:19:32] - Clearly we should all invest more in noodles! -Daniel
[2021-12-08 18:13:47] - paul: (stock market challenge / fantasy investing) look at that #3 spot, with 3 weeks to go!
~a[2021-12-08 17:34:48] - a: We've never had one but are considering trying to get one for next year. -Daniel
[2021-12-08 17:30:12] - i'm a *bit* surprised that so many people here have hdhp plans. like, everybody has an hdhp (or had one in the past)? is that weird? ~a
[2021-12-08 06:13:45] - daniel: lol, i know what you mean, but fidelity literally has an hsa.
fidelity hsa ~a[2021-12-08 05:25:40] - Optum for Andrea. Are they like the Fidelity of HSA's apparently? -Daniel
[2021-12-08 03:17:03] - Also Optum. Not by choice. If I recall, they have been charging something like a $20 annual fee to keep my account open, so it's been eating away at my balance since I haven't contributed for awhile. -Paul
[2021-12-08 00:01:59] - my hsa is managed by optum. - mig
[2021-12-07 23:25:15] - daniel: what company is andrea's company using to manage the hsa? ~a
[2021-12-07 23:24:45] - paul: who is your HSA through? ~a
[2021-12-07 22:26:11] - Paul: Andrea's company is offering the HDHP / HSA combo so we are going to look at it as well in the next week or so. -Daniel
[2021-12-07 21:22:48] - a: Ah, got it. Um... pretty much everything else I would google to look up, so you can do that just as well as me. I know it's triple tax advantaged, and it moves around with you (unlike an FSA). I think you can invest the money you have in there over $1k? Not sure what else I remember off the top of my head. -Paul
[2021-12-07 21:19:51] - paul: yeah, i have one of those. and in the next few weeks i'm going to get rid of it, so i'd like to open and fund the hsa while i still have hdhp. ~a
[2021-12-07 21:18:57] - a: Biggest gotcha is that you need to have a high deductible health insurance plan, at least as far as I know. Not sure if that got changed. -Paul
[2021-12-07 20:52:43] - paul: you have an hsa, right? are there any gotchas for opening an hsa? is there anything i should know? what are the income limits and caps? ~a
[2021-12-07 19:20:05] - a: I don't think he's Satoshi, and it would be a bit disappointing if he was, but it doesn't really change my bull case for bitcoin at all. -Paul
[2021-12-07 19:19:27] - a: Yeah, I get that. It would be kind of like finding out Jesus was a giant jerk. It doesn't necessarily negate whether his teachings were right, but it does sour a bit of the fervor behind the whole movement. -Paul
[2021-12-07 19:01:29] - paul: ah wow, yeah there are some updated things on all of this. jeeze, yeah, could this case have been successfully concluded without some determination that the funds exist? anyways, i'll still stick with my 90/10 guess until we see some transactions. ~a
[2021-12-07 17:12:17] - paul: i feel like satoshi nakamoto would def prefer to live forever in anonymity? his early coins are currently worth something like 70b usd, and can be easily attacked by anyone with a $10 wrench (even if the coins are behind plenty of security, or even destroyed, the owner of the $10 wrench doesn't know that, or might not be easily convinced). ~a
[2021-12-07 17:04:47] - paul: i kinda hate craig wright and how stupidly he acts, so it would definitely sour me on bitcoin's history if it ended up being him. i think the currency has obviously outlived satoshi's name, so it's basically no big deal. and, regardless satoshi is just a human (or a few humans) with human faults etc, but i dunno, craig wright is kinda an asshole. ~a
[2021-12-07 17:01:55] - paul: "soon" needs to be better defined, sorry. we've been waiting to find out stuff from him "soon" for the past 6 years.
i'm like 90% sure he's a fraud, but in the event that the 10% happens, and he's able to move coins (or even sign something with some private key that only satoshi would likely have access to), i'll reconsider my position. ~a[2021-12-07 16:59:11] - a: I know next to nothing around the whole debate around him, but from what I have heard I also tend to think he's not Satoshi. Still, I believe he is on record as saying he would move some of those original bitcoin if he wins his court case so I guess we'll definitively find out soon. -Paul
[2021-12-07 16:29:51] - paul: probably doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me: that wikipedia text has a borderline-false thing in it (an omission). gavin andresen rescinded his support of craig wright's claim. ~a
[2021-12-07 15:48:17] - paul: i strongly doubt it based on everything i've seen, but i haven't seen any updates on that in the past 2+ years. i just read a wikipedia section, and he's been suing people and trying to get the copyright claim on the whitepaper? if he's indeed satoshi, it would be trivial for him to prove this without a doubt, and he has decided not to. so i say, no fucking way. ~a
[2021-12-07 14:14:46] - Anybody here have any thoughts on if Craig Wright is Satoshi? -Paul
[2021-12-07 14:08:40] - Daniel: I think "hopeful" is the word I would use as well. I'll probably watch it, probably not on opening week or anything, and I hope it will be good but my expectations are low. -Paul
[2021-12-06 22:43:43] - Excited ish? I'm hoping its good but unsure how it ties in to the originals and I think the story was slipping on 2 & 3 already so I don't have super high hopes? But I think it should at least be fun if not that great. -Daniel
[2021-12-06 21:16:30] - Anybody excited to see the new Matrix movie in a few weeks? -Paul
[2021-12-06 19:51:30] - a: I don't know about Daniel specifically, but pretty clearly elements are using it to justify basically forcing people to get vaccinated or lose their job or lost health insurance or be forced to quarantine or whatever else. -Paul
[2021-12-06 19:42:55] - Paul: Sure and I think with most things you find teh balance. If there is something to push the balance further one direction I think a global scale pandemic would be the thing. -Daniel
[2021-12-06 19:42:37] - paul: "justifies action" what action is daniel justifying? ~a
[2021-12-06 19:38:50] - Daniel: Yeah, that's a good point. It just feels like the kind of indirect harm that, as a libertarian, I feel like leads to a slippery slope. Once you accept that some possible indirect harm justifies action, you can justify a lot of stuff like making people get flu shots or mandatory annual physicals or restrictions on fast food consumption. -Paul
[2021-12-06 19:33:50] - paul: it can be both though. it can be amazingly effective and also a big issue that unvaccinated people exist in great numbers everywhere (so that 5/100k is as large at it is). then on top of all that, there's daniel's thing . . . that the unvaccinated are making mutations worse but also making vaccines less effective? both seem like a problem by themselves, but both together seem like a fucking time bomb. ~a
[2021-12-06 19:31:19] - a: "you admit this, right?" Sure, they can, just like how people can catch COVID despite being vaccinated. I guess my point is that we talk up the amazing effectiveness of the vaccine (as we should) but seem to strangely downplay it when talking about the risk the unvaccinated pose to us. -Paul
[2021-12-06 19:30:03] - a: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see where things go with long COVID. I keep hearing about it, but it seems like we don't know much more about it now than we did a year ago? Or at least I haven't heard much about it. -Paul
[2021-12-06 15:05:25] - omg great point daniel i hadn't thought of that. ~a
[2021-12-06 14:50:19] - Which could start the whole process over again. -Daniel
[2021-12-06 14:50:09] - Paul: I think pandemics do have some complexity to them so thats part of the mixed msg's part. I think vaccinated peeps are generally safe-ish from Covid but can still transmit it around and in doing do give it chances to mutate and I think one of the concerns is that rather than just effectively get rid of Covid by getting 'everyone' / enough people vaccinated its going to mutate into something the vaccines aren't good against. -Daniel
[2021-12-06 04:24:51] - paul: "talking about how the unvaccinated can harm them" i mean, they can though, you admit this, right? 5 in 100k is still pretty high. (i know i bounce back and forth between these two competing and contrary arguments, but it's because they're both true: we SHOULD go back to normal, but also 5/100k isn't 1/100k, it's 5/100k) ~a
[2021-12-06 04:23:27] - paul: "how many of those are getting seriously impacted" many? losing your sense of smell is like super correlated with suicide risk. i'm not sure how taste ranks. i think Long COVID is a pretty big deal. "acknowledging that the vaccinated can pretty safely go back to normal" i've been saying this since the beginning, though. everybody who's vaccinated, go back to normal. i'm down. obviously not everybody agrees, but i do. ~a
[2021-12-06 04:19:17] - a: And assuming I am right about that latter point, I really don't get why we aren't pushing that. I feel like there are some mixed messages that are aiding the "vaccine resistant" message in terms of having the vaccinated still wear masks and talking about how the unvaccinated can harm them. -Paul
[2021-12-06 04:18:02] - a: 3 million catching it, but how many of those are getting seriously impacted? That's the number to look at. But also that's a different point. We can both be concerned about the unvaccinated not getting the vaccine and thus hurting themselves while also acknowledging that the vaccinated can pretty safely go back to normal. -Paul
[2021-12-06 04:11:37] - paul: "There's lots of stuff that indirectly affects us that we don't seem as concerned about" while i completely agree with this, it's hard for me to ignore the 3 million americans catching covid every month just because it isn't hospitalizing very many vaccinated. there aren't a lot of totally preventable things affecting 3 million americans every month, right? ~a
[2021-12-06 04:03:51] - a: I get that indirectly the unvaccinated are putting stresses on the healthcare system and increasing the odds we get breakthrough cases and whatnot, but that's exactly what it is: indirect. There's lots of stuff that indirectly affects us that we don't seem as concerned about. -Paul
[2021-12-06 03:58:18] - a: "suggesting that the unvaccinated are ok, or aren't worse than dangerous drivers is probably wrong?" It feels like a both can't be true: The vaccinated are mostly safe from COVID and the unvaccinated are putting us (the vaccinated) at significant risk. -Paul
[2021-12-04 06:45:14] - paul: "masking and avoiding restaurants and whatnot". I agree with you here. i go to restaurants like every other day. ~a
[2021-12-04 06:38:24] - paul: (per 100k annual) chance of dying in a car 12. chance of breakthrough infection hospitalization (which isn't what you said, but similar) 5. so that agrees with what you said. still cars are super dangerous and lame, and i avoid dangerous drivers and we similarly are all harmed by the unvaccinated. suggesting that the unvaccinated are ok, or aren't worse than dangerous drivers is probably wrong? ~a
[2021-12-04 06:27:59] - "2m is the safe distance assuming everybody is normal. if you’re coughing and wheezing (which causes your particles to fly out faster and longer), 2m isn’t a safe distance". I don't agree. 2m is literally for this exact scenario. if it weren't for coughing and wheezing the 2m wouldn't be necessary. I agree if an unvaccinated wanted to cough inside I would be uncomfortable, because 2m isn't perfection, but that is not this scenario. ~a
[2021-12-04 04:48:18] - However, it seems like a lot of the official government guidance seems to be treating even vaccinated people like they're still highly susceptible to COVID in terms of masking and avoiding restaurants and whatnot. I mean, I've heard criticism of the unvaccinated that they're putting the vaccinated at risk, which doesn't make a ton of sense to me. -Paul
[2021-12-04 04:45:53] - Maybe older people (60+?) and/or those with medical issues might want to consider being more careful, but I feel like for the most part those people's risk from COVID is not too dissimilar from risks from the flu or a car accident or whatever. -Paul
[2021-12-04 04:44:41] - One thing I am legitimately confused about (not trying to troll) is if we're supposed to consider vaccinated people to be basically immune to COVID (I know that's a super simplification, but bear with me), or still dangerous. For example, I kind of think that if you're vaccinated, then life should effectively be returning to normal for you. -Paul
[2021-12-04 01:19:27] - 2m is the safe distance assuming everybody is normal. if you’re coughing and wheezing (which causes your particles to fly out faster and longer), 2m isn’t a safe distance. - mig
[2021-12-04 00:25:36] - "I mean if i was exhibiting cold or flu symptoms, the expectation would be that i mask up for the courtesy of others". I agree with this but if somebody who's vaccinated, boosted, tested, and at a podium idgaf. ~a
[2021-12-04 00:20:42] - mig: "Heads of agencies may make categorical or case-by-case exceptions in implementing subsection" so it's literally in the mandate. ~a
[2021-12-04 00:18:58] - "i find the podium exception arbitrary, and a bit self serving" it kinda makes sense though right? im sure it's not the only allowed exception? podium is usually 2m away from other people and it's always been like this: the current administration didn't come up with this. fauci was at the podium without a mask since the beginning. around the world nobody's got a mask on at the podium. it's not unprecedented. it's precedented? ~a
[2021-12-03 23:54:04] - I mean if i was exhibiting cold or flu symptoms, the expectation would be that i mask up for the courtesy of others regardless of my vaccination status, and I wouldn’t think that unreasonable. - mig
[2021-12-03 23:52:30] - personally i find the podium exception arbitrary, and a bit self serving. - mig
[2021-12-03 22:54:25] - mig: are there exceptions for federal buildings? (ex. vaccinated or eating?) "he should probably look in the mirror". i don't agree, if he's following the guidelines. i lament that the unvaccinated are not taking this virus seriously. should i look in the mirror? ~a
[2021-12-03 22:40:30] - a: federal buildings and public transport require masking up currently, regardless of vaccination status or observing of social distancing. If Biden is lamenting people not taking the virus seriously, he should probably look in the mirror. - mig
[2021-12-03 20:56:48] - mig: aaaah. uhh, usually they've been wearing a mask except when at the podium, right? i think if you've been vaccinated, received the booster, tested negative for covid, wearing a mask when not at the podium or eating, and are standing 6-feet away and/or outdoors, big shrug? ~a
[2021-12-03 20:54:20] - a: I'm implying he should be wearing a mask, even if he's has tested negative for covid. Why take that risk? - mig
[2021-12-03 20:04:15] - i think even vfifx would have you near-ish to number one. ~a
[2021-12-03 19:44:41] - i was in first on wednesday. but yeah, you're doing pretty well, daniel. too bad you didn't go all-in on vti though, you'd be #1! ~a
[2021-12-03 19:40:15] - Oh man - the fantasy investing chart went super red since last time I looked! Oof. Adrian in 2nd place though! -Daniel
[2021-12-03 19:32:47] - mig: ok. i will too. are you implying we shouldn't take him at his word? has he done something to suggest his word is meaningless? i mean, i'd hear an argument that you can't know where your colds come from, but i *very much* doubt he would skip taking covid tests, or would take a covid test and then lie about its results? who would even do that? (/s) ~a
[2021-12-03 18:44:45] - https://www.nbc15.com/2021/12/03/biden-says-he-caught-cold-young-grandson/ i’ll take biden at his word that he has just a cold and not covid but shouldn’t he be wearing a mask at these press thingers? - mig
[2021-12-03 18:23:39] - paul: i've been reading a thread about speed cameras vs speed bumps, and this question i wanted to pose to you just came into my head . . . how do you propose we decrease speeding (especially near cities)? speeding directly correlates with road-deaths, so its a major problem that needs solving, imo. ~a
[2021-12-03 17:38:01] - I did buy Paul's book! More than once! NOooooooooooooo -Daniel
[2021-12-03 17:06:01] - a: "a lot of people"? Listen to my podcast! Watch my YouTube channel! Buy my book! -Paul
[2021-12-03 16:33:56] - now monetize your friends? gah, i say that to join in on your joke, but i feel like a lot of people have really tried this. ~a
[2021-12-03 15:30:39] - a: The real value was the friends made along the way. -Paul
[2021-12-03 15:06:17] - value is sometimes hard to measure. ~a
[2021-12-03 14:58:42] - If you end up getting an ethereum domain thingy, let me know. Maybe I'll claim pessen for giggles even though I'm almost positive it won't have value ever. -Paul
[2021-12-03 14:57:51] - a: Heh, yeah, it was a little weird with transitions at times. Luckily, the PS5 is out. -Paul
[2021-12-03 14:48:18] - i had to have two different people explain this to me before i got it, but this was a fun comic. ~a
[2021-12-03 04:41:06] - a: Assuming the really basic one is taken (like "paul") then I see a lot of full first name and last name. -Paul
[2021-12-02 20:38:10] - no, but you've convinced me to get one. problem is adrian and aporter are both taken. what should i register? is there a common theme you've seen for these names? ~a
[2021-12-02 14:52:55] - a: So, do you have one of those fancy ethereum wallet address thingies? -Paul
[2021-12-02 14:23:59] - a: Heh, yeah, we noticed. Apparently it's an issue with how video recording shows yourself reversed (Andrew was the one recording). -Paul
[2021-12-02 05:28:40] - fun! now i want a beer. andrew's shirt is backwards? ~a
[2021-12-02 03:17:45] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6YThN8cCasrgUQbp2e5-iA Only partially spam! -Paul
[2021-12-01 23:34:47] - mig: he is not seeking shit. "[president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..., Judges of the supreme Court" ~a
[2021-12-01 23:22:00] - a: " they are required to advise and consent" that's incorrect, the executive branch is the one required to seek advice and consent. The senate itself isn't required to do anything. - mig
[2021-12-01 22:18:06] - mig: "dems playing scorched earth with a mostly moderate Gorsuch" what was wrong with the gorsuch nomination? ~a
[2021-12-01 22:16:55] - mig: "there are no explicit requirements as to what actions the senate is obligated to take." they are required to advise and consent. i realize we've defined that to mean "have an active roll in", but they didn't have an active roll in the nomination of garland. they missed the mark. here i don't see any "lapsed" during reid's term, so you'll have to educate me. ~a
[2021-12-01 21:56:19] - McConnel certainly can be considering a villain here, but he had plenty of help. - mig
[2021-12-01 21:54:54] - moderate GOPers having to consider breaking the nominee filibuster for either Kavanaugh or Barret would have made those nominations much more difficult. But senate dems basically pushed that consideration off the table with Gorsuch. - mig
[2021-12-01 21:51:03] - as well as senate democrats during the Trump era. I have doubts that Kavanaugh or Barret would have passed through if not for senate dems playing scorched earth with a mostly moderate Gorsuch. - mig
[2021-12-01 21:49:33] - and if we want to be accurate, we can also thank harry reid for the current state of affairs. The history of this nonsense didn't begin with the Garland nomination. - mig
[2021-12-01 21:48:20] - are not - mig
[2021-12-01 21:45:25] - are they required to hold hearings, a vote? if so on what timeline? These things are defined anywhere. - mig
[2021-12-01 21:41:08] - and again, there are no explicit requirements as to what actions the senate is obligated to take. How does one even define what those are? - mig
[2021-12-01 21:19:04] - if you have a requirement of a passed inspection for whatever and the scenario plays out you can’t say you passed inspection either. - mig
[2021-12-01 20:45:30] - mig: "inaction is this case is an implied rejection" i'm not sure this makes any sense. this sounds like straight up fraud to me: if an inspector is charged to inspect my house, the inspector sent me an invoice, and i paid them, and they don't do any assessment, they don't look at my house, they couldn't even tell you which house is mine in a line-up, can i infer they inspected my house and it failed inspection? i'm not sure i can. ~a
[2021-12-01 20:27:24] - inaction is this case is an implied rejection. - mig
[2021-12-01 20:26:58] - Nothing in that reading obligates the senate to do anything specific (either holding hearings or votes). The only requirement is that the executive branch must get an affirmative response on the nominee from the senate to proceed with the nomination. - mig
[2021-12-01 20:11:44] - mig: i guess that agrees with me, then? they have a role in the process. they ignored that role in the process? ~a
[2021-12-01 20:08:49] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent this reading of “advice and consent” doesn’t impose any requirements of the senate, but merely states that they have a role in the process. - mig
[2021-12-01 20:00:16] - a: Yeah, we agree that it went against precedent of voting for competent nominations that go against party and this was a probably bad break of that precedent. I off-handedly mentioned the "voted down" part because I thought IF they were going to do Garland dirty like that, they should at least hold a vote. -Paul
[2021-12-01 19:58:25] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/tennis/peng-shuai-pound-intl-spt/index.html How many times do you think the editor had to triple check the IOC member's name wasn't a prank? -Paul
[2021-12-01 19:54:49] - mig: that isn't 100% correct. they're required to give advice as required by the constitution. to deny to give advice (and less-so to even check if they have consent) seems to completely ignore the constitution. they are explicitly required to give advice, which they did not do, right? ~a
prev <-> next