prev <-> next
[2022-02-03 21:28:23] - paul: just saw this on yahoo finance: "Facebook Owner Meta Set for $200 Billion Wipeout, Biggest in Market History" looks like others have noticed. ~a
[2022-02-03 21:22:19] - sweet, my (checks notes) 1 share of amazon! ~a
[2022-02-03 21:21:45] - a: And right now, AMZN is up 18% after hours. That's a hefty market cap gain. -Paul
[2022-02-03 20:15:01] - a: But at the same time, in theory, every transaction has a buyer and seller. -paul
[2022-02-03 20:14:34] - a: Whenever I think about the market and how it works it... really confuses me. Like, if everybody wanted to raise cash for whatever reason and decided to sell.... then everybody loses wealth because all the stocks go down. Likewise, if everybody decides to start buying everything then everybody's wealth goes up. -Paul
[2022-02-03 19:53:03] - it works both ways for sellers too. they are forced/encouraged to liquidate one thing if they need that money for another thing (even if it's just a buying opportunity). ~a
[2022-02-03 19:52:13] - paul: "everybody seems to think". i sit and wonder about this sometimes. it could just be buyers are temporarily strapped for cash? like in housing: when supply or demand is temporarily high or low, that shouldn't change the value of YOUR house. but it obviously does. houses competing against each-other is similar to stocks competing against each-other for buyers who sometimes are cash-poor because of . . . reasons. ~a
[2022-02-03 19:48:31] - Like previously with PayPal, everybody seems to think that because Facebook had some crappy earnings, all of my other investments are worth significantly less. Block is almost back to pre-pandemic levels! -Paul
[2022-02-03 19:40:45] - a: Sorry, yes, I saw FB today. As bad as my portfolio has been lately, I HAVE managed to dodge a few bullets (Facebook, Peleton, Upstart...) -Paul
[2022-02-03 19:39:52] - a: Oooohhhh, that's interesting. I wonder if it is. I hadn't even thought of that. I guess maybe it is. -Paul
[2022-02-03 19:12:01] - paul: did you see fb today? that's a $200b (nominal) change in one day, which has got to be a record. ~a
[2022-02-03 17:15:04] - ouch. ~a
[2022-02-03 17:03:54] - a: re - CNN. https://apnews.com/article/cnn-zucker-resigns-8bb57994bc510516ffa06fbac5442439 yikes! - mig
[2022-02-03 16:38:47] - i've literally never heard of the bank of england. on the other hand, i did always wonder why the heck the world seems to care so much about the us fed. ~a
[2022-02-03 16:36:49] - dol: initial jobless claims are down! down more than expected! stock market: meh. ~a
[2022-02-02 18:48:45] - a: Yeah, I don't know. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, and I would want to hear that argument, but at least in this very narrow case it seems super abusable. -Paul
[2022-02-02 18:46:35] - paul: "Seems like an oddly arbitrary power they have" it's interesting, but i'm totally not sure. staying an execution is one thing, but full on undoing half of what the judicial branch does? it's a bit weird, but i guess they didn't want judges to be too powerful? ~a
[2022-02-02 18:45:25] - a: Either way... yeah, it seems super shady. Maybe we shouldn't let the POTUS be pardoning whoever they want? Seems like an oddly arbitrary power they have. -Paul
[2022-02-02 18:45:22] - block yes, sorry. i just see sq as the ticker symbol and think square. ~a
[2022-02-02 18:44:59] - paul: "they've basically ended up being wrong about most things" and this is the crux of my argument: they've been basically wrong about very few things. ~a
[2022-02-02 18:44:34] - a: Not sure if you were being sarcastic about it being my favorite line of thinking but.... yeah. I understand why Block (not Square!) and Shopify might be down because PayPal sucked, but I just see a competitor doing poorly and still think online payments in general will be fine long term. -Paul
[2022-02-02 18:43:56] - paul: yes, sorry, i realized i said it backwards. ~a
[2022-02-02 18:42:54] - a: "he is encouraging those people to plea not guilty" Wouldn't it be the opposite? There would be nothing to pardon if they were found not guilty. Unless the idea is to "only" be found guilty of perjury, which you then get pardoned for? -Paul
[2022-02-02 18:41:23] - a: "maybe a lot of content moderators moderated the content out of the mainstream, but . . . i'm totally ok with that" Yeah, and this is the crux of the difference between us. I am not. Even if the content moderators ended up being right about everything (which would actually be impossible considering the masking back and forth) but ESPECIALLY considering that they've basically ended up being wrong about most things. -Paul
[2022-02-02 18:35:08] - paul: i know this is paul's favorite line of thinking, but if square and shopify are way-down because the whole internet-payment industry took a huge hit, then i'm totally fine with that: non-paypal payment companies' long-term outlooks aren't changed by this short-term industry-wide news? ~a
[2022-02-02 18:30:38] - paul: "he is encouraging those people to lie?" nope. not lie. he is encouraging those people to plea not guilty. which is something you're not allowed to do? it's super fucking shady shit and it's exactly what mob bosses are best at. you plead not guilty and we'll take care of you. (with mob bosses, you get taken care of in both situations though) ~a
[2022-02-02 18:28:31] - paul: "isn't that the undeniable takeaway" i'm denying it. it's not my takeaway. maybe a lot of content moderators moderated the content out of the mainstream, but . . . i'm totally ok with that. the fact that we're in a pandemic is not at all irrelevant. "the current science says it doesn't" the current science never said this. ~a
[2022-02-02 17:44:05] - I'm agreeing with the previous point that science isn't static and it changes (as it should!). I'm just saying our tolerance of discourse should reflect that. We should be able to discuss things that maybe aren't currently scientifically "true", because they might be true tomorrow. Like masks or Ivermectin or vaccines or lab leaks or whatever else. -Paul
[2022-02-02 17:42:29] - a: "i've literally never seen anyone take this stance" You might not have seen anybody say that, but isn't that the undeniable takeaway? You can't say Ivermectin might help against COVID because the current science says it doesn't. You can't say cloth masks might not be effective because the current science says they are. etc. -Paul
[2022-02-02 17:40:41] - a: Witness tampering because he is encouraging those people to lie? Probably, although I don't know a lot about witness tampering and I feel like it can sometimes be overly broad. -Paul
[2022-02-02 17:39:28] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/02/dr-scott-gottlieb-says-its-time-to-consider-dumping-school-covid-mask-mandates.html Going back to the school mask mandate thing. -Paul
[2022-02-02 17:39:09] - a: PayPal. They had some bad earnings and apparently that is taking down Square and Shopify. -Paul
[2022-02-02 17:06:01] - it feels like it is? if a witness even thinks there's a chance he'll get pardoned for a prior misdeed, he's way less likely to play ball with prosecutors. he's very likely to plead not guilty even if he thinks there's a good chance he'll be convicted. ~a
[2022-02-02 16:48:56] - huh, i didn't think of this (thanks cnn website) . . . if trump says he'll pardon january 6th people if he wins the 2024 election, is that witness tampering? according to pete aguilar (democrat house member) it is, but obviously he's a bit biased. do you guys think it is technically witness tampering? ~a
[2022-02-02 16:09:07] - i guess same question for shopify. ~a
[2022-02-02 16:07:02] - paul: what's with square today? i looked around for news and couldn't find any. ~a
[2022-02-02 15:30:44] - and i watch a lot of fox news. ~a
[2022-02-02 15:11:56] - paul: "there is a single truth on these issues and any disagreement cannot be tolerated" i've literally never seen anyone take this stance. ~a
[2022-02-02 14:25:43] - a: And maybe part of this whole thing is that you are narrowly thinking of the CDC and I am thinking of just the culture in general. I'm looping in the government and media and big tech platforms and everybody who seems to have taken this stance of: "There is a single truth on these issues and any disagreement cannot be tolerated" -Paul
[2022-02-02 14:24:29] - a: Because it's one thing to say, "Hey, we don't have evidence that Ivermectin works and our best guess is that any type of mask should be worn at all times indoors", it's another thing to say, "We have spoken on what is "fact" and "science" and anybody who disagrees and implies masks don't work or that people should take Ivermectin should be banned from platforms and mocked as idiots". -Paul
[2022-02-02 14:20:28] - a: I guess my question would be, is there anything that will get you to admit that the CDC / authorities / whatever you want to call the people who shaped the discourse and set boundaries on what is and is not acceptable to say were wrong? -Paul
[2022-02-02 14:11:11] - a: Which was probably a good thing! Sometimes, like in the case of a global pandemic, it might make sense to move fast and prove later. How many lives were lost because we waited months to show efficacy in vaccines? Was it worth it? Maybe. Hard to say. -Paul
[2022-02-02 14:10:01] - a: "if you promote a conclusion without a study in a public pandemic i'm totally fine calling that misinformation" I don't fully understand why the context of a pandemic changes things, but if we're going with that, then how about masking? Or social distancing? Or hand sanitizer? All of those things were promoted at one point in time without any studies proving efficacy. -Paul
[2022-02-01 21:01:59] - daniel: fair enough, that's pretty crazy. I've only really listened to his episode with Dr. Gupta, which felt more like a discussion than most other media discourse on the topic. - mig
[2022-02-01 20:55:22] - Like maybe Pfizers and Moderna's dept's aren't going down that avenue, but the idea that all scientists are ignoring it rather than some tried it and it didn't work that great? That seems much more reasonable to me. Now a new study from Japan - maybe there is something there? Maybe not? We'll see how the peer review goes. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 20:54:13] - And later hosted proponents of ivermectin who continued that same line of thinking. Personally I don't give a crap about ivermectin but the idea that the global scientific community isn't pursuing all angles and trying to figure it out and are deliberately avoiding a solution is bonkers. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 20:51:15] - He then immediately couches it with "I don't know if its right or wrong" but that seems pretty weak to say right after that. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 20:50:39] - Thats not positing the idea that studies should be done or checked / reviewed / duplicated. Thats presenting something as a conclusion and adding a layer of conspiracy. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 20:49:42] - From https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/joe-rogan-covid19-misinformation-ivermectin-spotify-podcast-1219976/ a quote from Rogan "“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”" -Daniel
[2022-02-01 20:43:59] - daniel: I'm thinking more like the Rogan situation, where I believe he only stated he was prescribed Ivermectin not promoting it as a super wonder drug, which got everyone freaked out (to the point where CNN blatantly lied about him taking horse dewormer). I know you guys don't like Rogan, but he does seem more interested in actual discussion. - mig
[2022-02-01 18:56:25] - Its possible(likely?) that the anti invermectin crowd wasn't patient / open to discourse either but people taking a drug and blinding / killing themselves isn't a great outcome that does seem like something we (society) should try to avoid. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 18:55:11] - So I don't know that is great but my personal experience wasn't that the pro ivermectin crowd was patient / rational / open to discourse. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 18:54:35] - I guess we'd need to look at examples at that point? The ones I saw (mostly from my aunt) were not invitations to discussion with the idea that no action should be taken until we figure out if this is a good idea. It was definitely this is good and there is some level of consipracy preventing us from doing so. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 18:44:23] - daniel? ~a
[2022-02-01 18:44:20] - hmmm, yeah good point. ~a
[2022-02-01 18:11:20] - a: it was more than just "promoting without conclusion". Just having that discussion of the topics was considered "misinformation" per Facebook, twitter, other media. - mig
[2022-02-01 17:43:14] - paul: the problem with your analogy (both really, the galileo one and the trump russian agent one) is the lack of a major global pandemic. ~a
[2022-02-01 17:41:56] - paul: "at what point is there some humble pie over definitively calling something misinformation when the real answer is that we don't know" if you promote a conclusion without a study in a public pandemic i'm totally fine calling that misinformation. no humble pie necessary if you end up being right. ~a
[2022-02-01 17:41:43] - I mean, how many hours of baseless conspiracy theories around Trump being some secret Russian agent were aired on MSNBC? Shouldn't we have shut those all down until we got the Mueller report? Doesn't that suggestion seem silly? -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:40:23] - a: More studies, sure, we can all agree on that. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. I'm just saying that at what point is there some humble pie over definitively calling something misinformation when the real answer is that we don't know? -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:37:05] - a: "they were only rarely right, and the cdc was only rarely wrong" I can't believe this is your takeaway for the CDC from the past two years. On the biggest debates over COVID they have been consistently wrong until the scientific evidence was too overwhelming to ignore. I mean, what can happen at this point that would convince you they were wrong about something? -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:36:23] - paul: "so?", well i'd parrot daniel and say that conclusions without studies in the context of a public pandemic is not a good idea. ~a
[2022-02-01 17:34:19] - a: "you at least agree this was true then, right?" Sure... so? I mean, all these arguments could be used with Galileo, right? "currently available data do not show the earth goes around the sun". I think you're assuming that these are all ignorant hicks who blindly follow Trump (and that could be true for the majority), but there are also smart scientists who get caught up in these things too. -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:33:37] - Conclusions w/o studies in the context of a public pandemic are not a good idea. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 17:32:09] - "How do you know?" - cause no published studies on the matter. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 17:31:45] - paul: "'conspiracy whack-jobs' on twitter have been right". they were only rarely right, and the cdc was only rarely wrong. you're badly confusing history here. ~a
[2022-02-01 17:31:02] - And the CDC have been wrong. -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:30:53] - And to be clear. I'm not saying Ivermectin is a miracle drug. Open question whether it might work. I wouldn't take it right now. I probably made fun of people who did take it at one point. I've been a good CDC follower like everybody else here and got my three shots and wear my mask all the time and everything else. I'm just saying that it's shocking how often the "conspiracy whack-jobs" on twitter have been right... -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:29:52] - paul: "How do you know?" scientists will usually say "currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against covid-19". you at least agree this was true then, right? ~a
[2022-02-01 17:28:27] - Daniel: Or 2 years ago, "N95 masks don't do anything to prevent catching COVID: misinformation" -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:27:15] - Daniel: "You should take invermectin if you get covid because it works great and big pharma doesn't want you to know: misinformation" How do you know? What if a year from now we find out it DOES work great? Again, 12 months ago we could be saying: "I'm not wearing a cloth mask in Costco because it hardly does any good: misinformation" -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:22:25] - You shouldn't be censored or shamed for the first. You should be for the second. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 17:22:25] - I don't know if the lab leak theory is true. I don't know if Ivermectin works. I don't know how effective cloth masks are. I don't know if the Wuhan lab was studying gain of function (or even what that means!). I don't know if vaccines provide protection from infection from Omicron. What I do know is we should be able to discuss these things openly and be humble over how often we were wrong about things over the past 18 months. -paul
[2022-02-01 17:22:24] - paul: they were correctly shamed, though. if you promote something with zero data, it can be (and in this case is) dangerous and should not be done. even if you end up being "right" that your idea could work, you were "wrong" for promoting it as something people should just blindly do without the studies to back it up. ivermectin is a perfect example of that. the cdc said there was no data and the fda had not approved it for this. ~a
[2022-02-01 17:21:53] - The idea that ivermectin might have uses and should be looked at by scientists: not misinformation. You should take invermectin if you get covid because it works great and big pharma doesn't want you to know: misinformation. Those two statements are not the same. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 17:20:03] - Daniel: And the science is known for sure and must be followed and misinformation can be known for sure and must be banned from being discussed. Again, people were shamed and censored for saying things that we either admit were true now or are realizing COULD be true. -Paul
[2022-02-01 17:18:12] - Daniel: "I think you want all of this to be binary and be "right" or "wrong" but things are always changing and people work with the knowledge they have" No, quite the opposite. My point is that it's often hard to know what is right and what is wrong but there seems to be this growing idea that there is "science" and "misinformation". -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:57:45] - mig: yeah. i wonder about cnn sometimes. is fox news really that much worse? their webpage (cnn.com) seems pretty ok to me, but, much like fox news, it's the opinion segments on tv that are kinda 99% bullshit. ~a
[2022-02-01 16:56:03] - daniel: ("overall net effect on society". i wonder this about a lot of technological marvels. how about computers in general? or the internal combustion engine? or the industrial revolution?
i mean, it's all musing because it doesn't change anything, but i think about it sometimes.) ~a[2022-02-01 16:45:02] - a: not twitter, mostly yelling at CNN. - mig
[2022-02-01 16:40:08] - (though it also might be in some form an inevitable extension of the internet and increased communication among people). -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:39:24] - (totally derails the covid conversation but I wonder some if overall net effect of social media has been negative - like I know there are use cases and positive use cases but not sure on the overall net effect on society). -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:37:09] - (everyone I think would be better off with less social media consumption imo - including news organizations who report things ) -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:35:55] - mig: and i guess this goes more to what paul's complaining about. you guys see screaming on twitter, and assume that it's coming from the cdc directly or something? ~a
[2022-02-01 16:35:06] - mig: the cdc didn't say "horse dowormer man bad". they said "the fda has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating covid-19 in humans or animals". ~a
[2022-02-01 16:34:04] - the whole rogan episdoe went "HORSE DEWORMER MAN BAD!", but .. he's taking the human version, "NO HORSE DEWORMER MAN BAD!" - mig
[2022-02-01 16:33:21] - the problem with the invermectin episode is there was no attempt to make any distinction between the human and animal version of the drug, and if anything attempts were made to intentionally conflate the too, which is also dangerous. - mig
[2022-02-01 16:32:06] - I'm with adrian though that some study figuring out a way to use ivermectin safely / effectively isn't an L for the CDC / gov / "authorities". They as 'authorities' don't have the luxury to just half ass some treatment recommendation and hope for the best. That is not how we want it to work so they have to operate on the knowledge they have at the time. If that changes then so do the recommendations / treatments. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:29:40] - It was and is dumb to take advice from social media about medicine to take when you are facing a potentially lethal disease instead of your doctor. Maybe some study figures out that some dosage of ivermectin done in some way does have some benefit but doctors in FL / CO / VA wherever don't have the luxury of just starting their own rando experiment and if they don't know that its safe why would they advise/allow it. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:27:06] - And I'm pretty sure there were studies early on that didn't show anything positive from ivermectin. So maybe that Japanese study figured out something new. Or the other study was bad in some way - dunno. But it did get looked at. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:26:48] - paul: i defer to daniel. he's explaining my thoughts more or less. it's dangerous to suggest people do a thing without data. it's not dangerous to study if a thing will work, and collect data. if social media wants to censor "dangerous information" (cue 1984) during a global pandemic, it might be a good idea? (but like, almost literally, between a rock and a hard place) ~a
[2022-02-01 16:26:18] - I think you want all of this to be binary and be "right" or "wrong" but things are always changing and people work with the knowledge they have. If people had been like we really think ivermectin should be studied immediately and pushed it to go through approval processes that would be one thing. But thats not what was advocated. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:24:46] - There is a difference between hey scientists here's an idea. And hey layman go buy this medicine and dual use it and hope for the best. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:23:49] - paul: People are positing the idea that ivermectin might be a good idea and that it should be studied. They were (are) advocating for taking it right now and going to a vet store potentially to buy it. -Daniel
[2022-02-01 16:23:20] - a: Honestly, I'm less interested in pointing the finger and saying, "they were wrong!" and more interested in pointing the finger and saying: "This is why censoring misinformation is a bad idea. It's impossible to tell what is misinformation in the moment. Let's all be a little more humble about what is fact and 'the science'" -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:23:18] - paul: hmmm. no, i don't agree i don't think, but i'm in a meeting so i'll have to delay describing my thoughts. ~a
[2022-02-01 16:22:04] - a: Can we at least agree on this? If Ivermectin is shown to be effective in treating COVID in humans (which, it should be stressed, is still a huge if), then isn't it not a great look for the media / government / cdc / fda / big tech which has consistently mocked those who were taking it and trying to suppress discussion of it? -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:15:05] - a: "it's how science literally works!" Yes, exactly! Science works by questioning conventional wisdom and challenging it. Not by blindly accepting it and saying that anybody who says otherwise is spreading dangerous misinformation and needs to be deplatformed. I think you're forgetting how government and media and social media treated these topics. -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:14:20] - paul: i doubt fauci and trump were calling anything racist. so you're probably talking about democrat politicians here, or democrat twitter, am i right? ~a
[2022-02-01 16:13:26] - a: Maybe authorities was the wrong word. I wanted a catch-all for government agencies, politicians, mainstream media, social media.... the people who basically controlled the discourse and decided what was misinformation and what wasn't. -paul
[2022-02-01 16:13:13] - paul: "all I see is moving goalposts all over the place" that's because you remember history through a filter of forgetting how scientists aaaaalways talk. they always say "there is no data", which means, stop doing this thing until we have a fucking science experiment that suggests that it's a good idea. scientists aren't waffling if they find a study then tell you a thing is a good idea. it's how science literally works! ~a
[2022-02-01 16:12:11] - a: And it turns out that, again, the CDC was wrong and the people on social media were right. Then the lab leak theory was a racist conspiracy.... until it wasn't. Plenty of media and government people also overstated how effective the vaccine was at preventing infection and transmission (things that also got people thrown off social media). -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:11:17] - paul: "remember when the biden admin was coordinating with facebook to identify misinformation?" i agreed with you at the time that this was super lame, and should stop, but somehow this is evidence of control? ~a
[2022-02-01 16:09:56] - a: All I see is moving goalposts all over the place. Early on smart people on twitter were advising to get N95 masks. I didn't, because the CDC said they didn't do any good. They were wrong. Then the CDC said to wear ANY kind of mask and smart people were saying cloth masks are silly because they hardly do anything and people had literal fights about wearing cloth masks in stores... -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:06:38] - a: "the authorities control social media?" Semantics, but yeah? Remember when the Biden admin was coordinating with Facebook to identify misinformation? Also, you don't think the people kicking others off social media could be considered authorities? It has to be government? -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:06:27] - paul: for #5, please look at my "back to ivermectin" comment. i think i address those things. the quotes from the authorities say not to take it. and it is dangerous, yes. and they weren't wrong. ~a
[2022-02-01 16:05:28] - paul: "anybody who suggested cloth masks didn't do much...until the cdc agreed" i'm not sure this is true at all. cloth masks provide less protection, everybody agrees on that, but i don't see any studies that suggest that cloth masks provide zero (or near zero) protection. maybe this is somehow confusing you? "the cdc concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks" like, seriously? ~a
[2022-02-01 16:04:39] - a: "5. technically invermectin" Come on, really? We just went through months of panicking from authorities about how Ivermectin doesn't work and mocking anybody who takes it as taking horse dewormers (despite it being a human drug too) and slamming anybody who talks about it as promoting misinformation. You want me to find quotes from authorities saying it doesn't work? -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:02:05] - a: "2. masks" Are you kidding? Masks are probably the poster child for what authorities have gotten wrong. They got it wrong twice! First they either were wrong about them not helping (or intentionally lied to people.... you can choose which is more charitable) then again anybody who suggested cloth masks didn't do much were "spreading misinformation"... until the CDC agreed. -paul
[2022-02-01 16:01:18] - the authorities control social media? ~a
[2022-02-01 16:00:33] - a: "1. vaccinations" I'm mostly with you, but there's been a lot of waffling around vaccinations combined with strict regulation around what people can say about it in terms of whether they prevent people from catching COVID. Some people get kicked off social media for saying it while others get a pass because they are technically right about it reducing chances of infection for some variants. -Paul
[2022-02-01 16:00:20] - paul: back to ivermectin: "the fda has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating covid-19 in humans or animals" true. "ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic ... blah blah" true "currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against covid-19" true currently available, paul,
you're complaining about science working as intended! ~a[2022-02-01 15:50:25] - paul: oh man, i forgot a bunch more. ~a
[2022-02-01 15:47:33] - paul: "what would be left for them to be wrong about?" wow, ok, uuh. 1. vaccinations. 2. masks. 3. indoor spread. 4. social distancing. 5. technically invermectin. (look at what they said about invermectin. they never actually said anything wrong about invermectin). 6. pretty much everything? everything except that first time they told us not to wear masks, or mask outdoors, or wash hands and surfaces? pretty minor imo? ~a
[2022-02-01 15:39:05] - mig: i wouldn't no, probably not. i don't think we shut things down for delta? i'd instead encourage companies to require a vaccination for situations where vaccinations have always been required, or situations the virus is likely to spread. (colleges, airplanes, trains, international travel, indoor dining). especially situations that have free association, so maybe not schools if we're also going to mandate that people go to school? ~a
[2022-02-01 15:21:39] - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/japans-kowa-says-ivermectin-effective-against-omicron-phase-iii-trial-2022-01-31 Geez, are we going to learn that the authorities were wrong about Ivermectin too? What would be left for them to be wrong about? Should we have been drinking bleach after all? -Paul
[2022-02-01 13:44:18] - a: should we just shut everything down again? - mig
[2022-01-31 19:27:29] - and i've literally seen the vaccine card for everybody in my company. ~a
[2022-01-31 19:26:28] - paul: uuuh, i don't know. 1 death per million per day? i'm not sure. and it'll be contextual i think. i know everybody on my bike team is vaccinated, so i definitely take that into account. ~a
[2022-01-31 19:24:28] - yes it's a lagging indicator, i agree. but only lagging by a few weeks. i wouldn't consider it to "start" masking (i don't have thoughts on this yet), but i might consider it to "end" masking. ~a
[2022-01-31 19:23:56] - a: What percentage would be the line for you for masking? I know that's an impossible thing to answer, so just a general idea is fine. I honestly don't know where my line. -Paul
[2022-01-31 19:23:23] - a: Isn't that an oddly lagging indicator, though? I mean, we know there's some seasonality, so wouldn't that cause us to drop mask mandates during summer and re-implementing them after a bunch of people have already caught whatever new variant? Feels like we would often be masking after the chickens have left the coop... or something. -Paul.
[2022-01-31 19:22:21] - (flu deaths averaged out are around .3 deaths per million per day. i know they peak in certain seasons, but i'm not sure what they peak at) ~a
[2022-01-31 19:19:07] - paul: "At what point would you support ending mandatory indoor masking?" once the death level gets down to flu-levels. probably even well-above that. 2 deaths per million per day? maybe 3? (we were *well* below 1 death per million per day over the summer). "hypothetically, if new evidence showed that masks make COVID spread 1% less likely" yes, of course. but that's very-much not the case. ~a
[2022-01-31 19:15:42] - a: At what point would you support ending mandatory indoor masking? Is it based on death rates alone? Is there some level of ineffectiveness that would change your mind? Like, hypothetically, if new evidence showed that masks make COVID spread 1% less likely. Would that change your mind? -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:50:39] - "masking works indoors in general, so shouldn't that mean you support mandatory indoor masking?" paul, there's a pretty big difference between ending mask mandates and not wearing them in general.
but yeah, i support mandatory indoor masking (as of january 31st, 2022. once rates go down i'll probably change my thoughts on this) outside of schools. i don't know shit about schools, but again, i feel for the teachers. ~a[2022-01-31 18:50:33] - a: Even with today, I am down 23% in 2022 so far. Boom. -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:48:27] - paul: i'm still reeling from the early-january market. the market went down only 9%, but it seemed so much worse for some reason. ~a
[2022-01-31 18:47:07] - a: "after deferring to doctors, i'd hope administrations/politicians defer to what teachers want. since they're the ones that are putting their lives at risk (that they're underpaid does not help)." Don't want to start another big debate but.... disagree.
Question, though: You said you now masking works indoors in general, so shouldn't that mean you support mandatory indoor masking? -Paul[2022-01-31 18:43:21] - paul: "Doesn't change my belief that the evidence is very thin that mandatory masking in schools does any significant good" did i ever question this? i know masking works indoors in general, but know very little about kids/schools/teachers. after deferring to doctors, i'd hope administrations/politicians defer to what teachers want. since they're the ones that are putting their lives at risk (that they're underpaid does not help). ~a
[2022-01-31 18:30:15] - Also, I can't believe we haven't discussed the market today. My portfolio is up 7%+ today with all but two positions up at least 5% (Fiverr up 15%!) -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:29:29] - a: "the omicron death rate (deaths per day) is higher than the delta death rate (deaths per day)" Okay. We can remove that extra info then. Doesn't change my belief that the evidence is very thin that mandatory masking in schools does any significant good. -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:24:07] - paul: "it'll probably end up as something similar to the flu where it's always with us" this seems too binary. and it breeds bad decisions. there aren't only two outcomes, one where it's gone forever and one where it's around forever: some waves are bigger than others. "I included info about Omicron being less deadly" i question this: the omicron death rate (deaths per day) is higher than the delta death rate (deaths per day). ~a
[2022-01-31 18:22:12] - a: Because it seems like COVID isn't going away, right? Safe to assume it'll probably end up as something similar to the flu where it's always with us and has different variants every year? So if the argument is that we have to keep doing something because people are dying.... then we'll never end. -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:20:56] - a: Yes, but we've gone full circle again. I keep saying: "I don't think mandatory masking in schools is doing much good" and your response is often: "but lots of people are dying". I challenge the connection. I included info about Omicron being less deadly and whatnot as extra evidence, but it all starts with: "mandatory masking in schools doesn't help much" -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:09:14] - paul: "returning to normal unless there's compelling reason to keep something" thank you for giving me your proposal. my take: the "reason" is the 10,000 deaths per day worldwide. for perspective, the flu is something closer to 500-1000 per day? ~a
[2022-01-31 18:04:14] - paul: i'm fine with your patriot act metaphor, so let's do it then! once the death-rate (per day) goes below the death rate of the flu (per day) i'm down to remove the emergency powers. but we're not there yet, right? ~a
[2022-01-31 18:02:23] - paul: a "peak" or a "downswing" requires premonition. even if you're only looking at rates going up, or going down, you're obviously just looking at cases only, and not deaths. if we use the paul prediction method using deaths: omicron is on the upswing! regardless, we don't know where it will be tomorrow, and this is a huge moving of the goalposts. the current RATE is higher than delta's maximum rate using either method. ~a
[2022-01-31 18:02:20] - It's like the Patriot Act, right? We need these emergency powers for the war on terrorism and now they'll never go away. -Paul
[2022-01-31 18:00:43] - If we can't end masking mandates in schools now, when Omicron is far less deadly (but far more infectious) and where cloth masks don't seem to prevent the spread and where it looks like the current wave has crested and where there are no studies that can prove efficacy at preventing outbursts and where we have pretty good vaccines.... when will we ever be able to? -Paul
[2022-01-31 17:59:14] - a: "end mask mandates and make no other changes" Kind of? I mean, I feel like things have changed a lot since mid-2020 in terms of what we know about COVID, the new variants, and how the vaccine has changed the calculus, but so much of our thinking seems stuck in 2020. I am all for re-evaluating our priors and returning to normal unless there's compelling reason to keep something. -paul
[2022-01-31 16:48:59] - paul: "I think it's going to spread regardless" just to be clear here, your proposal sounds like: end mask mandates and make no other changes. if this is your proposal, fine, but i'm not sure if i'm putting words in your mouth or not. ~a
[2022-01-31 16:48:08] - paul: "I believe it's an open question if the spread will be faster or slower with or without masking" huh? it's been an open question if masks work indoors or not? i'm surprised by this, the may clinic says i should wear masks indoors. it's an open question? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:45:29] - a: "the virus will still spread, if very few people wear masks" I'm not sure I understand? The virus has been spreading regardless of masking. The virus seems like it's going to keep spreading regardless of masking. I believe it's an open question if the spread will be faster or slower with or without masking, but I think it's going to spread regardless. -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:43:31] - a: The stats I am looking at show we've peaked and are (apparently?) on the downswing in terms of omicron. Regardless, that seems to be besides the point. My point is that there doesn't appear to be a lot of evidence that masking in schools makes any kind of meaningful difference. That will be true regardless of what the death counts are. -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:43:02] - It's why I was annoyed by the disney policy. - mig
[2022-01-31 16:42:33] - I just don't want half measures, because as you said, it won't work. - mig
[2022-01-31 16:42:01] - a: if we were willing to go full draconian on things like masks (require outdoor where there's no social distancing, really enforce it indoors), that's something I wouldn't like but would at least not resent and accept as useful. - mig
[2022-01-31 16:41:55] - paul: "masking can help the wearer regardless of what others are doing" ah yes good point, i'll redefine "masks will not work". i specifically mean, the virus will still spread, if very few people wear masks. so . . . what's your proposal? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:40:38] - a: "but if 25% of people are wearing masks, masks will not work" I'm not sure if that's true. I've seen evidence that in certain situations masking can help the wearer regardless of what others are doing. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/does-it-help-wear-mask-if-no-one-else/621177/ -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:38:56] - paul: it doesn't help that when mask mandates end, and businesses try to enforce a mask rule for their business, then front-line workers get mistreated. kinda sucks, but it's a fun side-effect of ending mask mandates that you probably shouldn't ignore. ~a
[2022-01-31 16:37:09] - paul: "I don't see why everything has to either be mandatory or banned" of course this is fundamentally true, but if 25% of people are wearing masks, masks will not work. i asked miguel, but i'll ask you: what's your proposal. we're over and above delta-levels in deaths per day (or deaths per capita per day). are you fine with easing mask restrictions? is that the only change you'd make? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:36:08] - Probably getting a little confused with other debates where people seem to assume ending mask mandates means everybody is going to go around maskless and coughing on each other.
-Paul[2022-01-31 16:35:29] - a: Ah, sorry, yes, I didn't see Miguel's post just said, "end masks". My mistake. Sorry, Daniel. -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:34:47] - And yes, I do understand masking is a little different in how it affects others, but I think the science (particularly with masking in schools) is starting to be clear that it doesn't make a big difference. -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:34:01] - Flu shots aren't mandatory, but plenty of people get them. Voting isn't mandatory, but plenty of people vote. I don't see why everything has to either be mandatory or banned. Can't we just leave some things up to people to decide for themselves? -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:31:32] - paul: he's not confused, he's asking for clarification. miguel didn't specify, and he still hasn't. he said "mask rules are becoming TSA security theatre [sic]". ~a
[2022-01-31 16:31:31] - I personally wear my mask more often than almost everybody I know. During the height of COVID, I even wore mine INTO THE OCEAN (wasn't planning on putting my head underwater). Whenever I think people are going to want me to wear a mask, I try to make sure I wear it. At the same time, I think forcing everybody (particularly children in school) to wear them all the time is excessive. -paul
[2022-01-31 16:29:43] - Daniel "end mask mandates? end wearing them in general? not sure what that means" This isn't intended to be hostile to you, but I don't get the confusion over this. There's a HUGE difference between ending mask mandates and not wearing them in general. There's no "tipping" mandate, yet the majority of people tip in restaurants. -Paul
[2022-01-31 16:13:54] - i went to disney world once in the 80s and once in the 90s. that's really cool. did you like it? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:09:09] - mig: what is your proposal? we're about to start putting people in freezer trucks. if you don't like masks, because they're ineffective, or whatever, then sure i'm fine with that. but . . . now what? how do you think we should proceed? status quo? ease all restrictions? something different? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:07:00] - mig: "that's the data, but no one seems to be freaking out about it?" i'm not sure your point. yes, that's the data. whether we should "freak out" about it is irrelevant. it's whether we should make thought-out decisions based on it. you said before that you were unwilling to do "something" until things reached delta-levels. and delta-levels are in the rear-view window? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:06:36] - Basically, mask rules are becoming TSA security theatre, at least in my view. - mig
[2022-01-31 16:06:00] - yes, disney world. - mig
[2022-01-31 16:05:13] - disney world? ~a
[2022-01-31 16:04:54] - case in point when I was at disney this weekend. We were required to wear a mask indoor pretty much everywhere disney related, but we didn't outdoors, which while there's less risk of transmission, it was packed and people were everywhere. at that point, it seemed the mask rules were pointless. - mig
[2022-01-31 16:01:53] - a: I mean that's the data, but no one seems to be freaking out about it? - mig
[2022-01-31 16:00:52] - a: I'd almost say wearing them in general. We have so many arbitrary "exceptions" to masking (especially at eating places) that I feel like it's pointless at this point. - mig
[2022-01-31 15:56:24] - mig: did you see that the deaths per day have gone over the delta-levels? we're at omicron levels now . . .
~a[2022-01-31 15:55:48] - of course they do. i wonder why he made the vow public. i'm not sure it makes sense to make it public unless you're intentionally encouraging your opponent to take a specific move? ~a
[2022-01-31 15:55:02] - mig: end mask mandates? end wearing them in general? not sure what that means. -Daniel
[2022-01-31 14:46:04] - https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398 I found this interesting. "Democrats are more supportive of Biden's vow (46%) than Americans as a whole, but still a majority of Democrats (54%) also prefer that Biden consider all possible nominees." -Paul
[2022-01-30 18:30:00] - If we aren’t planning to be super draconian about masks I think its time to end masks. - mig
[2022-01-28 19:21:18] - "when is the appropriate time to end them". yeah. uuuh, really soon i hope. masks are lame. ~a
[2022-01-28 19:20:09] - a: So, presumably at some point FCPS will rescind mask mandates and I also presume at that point that COVID will not have been completely eradicated from the planet (unfortunately). So we're less arguing about whether mask mandates are right (in both senses) but more about when is the appropriate time to end them. -Paul
[2022-01-28 19:18:45] - a: Yes, sorry, it's confusing. (1) FCPS, I would assume, is fairly liberal. (2) They are suing to stop Youngkin's executive order so they can keep mask mandates (3) They also, on the town hall meeting with parents, mentioned they are looking forward to the day when those mandates are no longer necessary -Paul
[2022-01-28 19:10:37] - paul: regardless, my answer is the same. i say "no". what younkin is doing is not far right. but, what he is doing does fit pretty distinctly in the anti-mask playbook. ~a
[2022-01-28 19:09:49] - paul: wait what? i thought you said fcps was suing to stop the anti-mask-mandate? if they're trying to stop-anti-mask then i think that would make them pro-mask. and therefore "letting kids not wear masks" is a weird thing for you to say? ~a
[2022-01-28 19:07:53] - a: They must be if they are considering letting kids not wear masks.
-Paul[2022-01-28 19:02:31] - fcps is far right? i didn't know that. ~a
[2022-01-28 19:00:40] - a: Sure. And I'm not asking if you agree with it or not. Just whether it seems like it's a "hard right" move (sorry to be vague, I can't be much more specific). I mean, I was on the FCPS meeting recently (they're suing to stop the order) and they made a big deal about how they hope to rescind the mandates soon, so apparently even the far right FCPS is considering making the move. -Paul
[2022-01-28 18:55:10] - paul: i'll say "no". there's probably a dozen ways of looking at this situation? you've got local government doing one thing, regional government doing something different, and your rights ending where my *nose* begins (get it?). only half of the ways of looking at this puts it in the "right" camp. but i'll put heavy weight on "the party of law and order". there's nothing orderly about kids catching covid at school. ~a
[2022-01-28 18:41:44] - Sanity check: Youngkin (new Republican governor for VA) has recently released an executive order banning mask mandates for public schools. In other words, schools could not force kids to wear masks. Would you consider this to be a "hard right" move? -Paul
[2022-01-28 02:37:00] - a: Yeah, no, I get why this hurts differently. That's really odd that they would do that. Almost feels like... uh... malfeasance? fraud? Those aren't the right words, but it seems like it should go against some sort of internal regulations. Allocations and risk tolerance are important. -Paul
[2022-01-27 21:07:24] - i mean, i know we're all losing money, but this is . . . money lost, due to no fault of my own? ~a
[2022-01-27 21:06:27] - paul: ouch. as you can probably guess, that $50k in equities is now, basically $45k in equities, or whatever. but the big thing, is the equities i have in other accounts are hurting too, so this is basically more bad news, after i'm already struggling with, i dunno, expected bad news? so sad. ~a
[2022-01-27 21:05:06] - paul: ok. i was using this 401k to be 100% bonds! (my other accounts are heavyweight in equities to balance that out). they had a pretty sweet free-brokerage account which i liked a lot, but they capped how much of your account could be in the brokerage. the brokerage account they left alone (the transfer of equities worked perfectly, no changes). the rest had $50k in all bonds that they put that into (pretty much) 100% equities. ~a
[2022-01-27 20:58:20] - a: Yikes, that sucks. What was it in before? I thought they typically tried to move it into similar vehicles when doing something like that. -Paul
[2022-01-27 20:41:10] - lol, i just got fucked by keeping my money in an old 401k. here's the scenario: your old company changes their 401k provider, and when they do that, they change all of your market-allocations! since you don't work at that company anymore, you don't notice that they've done this, and they end up moving a bazillion dollars into equities right before a market slump. oof! ~a
[2022-01-27 17:56:59] - Just clarifying from before that this DOES appear to be a continuation of a long-standing policy and not something new. -Paul
[2022-01-27 17:56:08] - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boston-hospital-heart-transplant-covid-vaccine/ "it was just the latest manifestation of a broader, long-standing approach — set out in professional guidelines — of attempting to maximize the likelihood of a given transplant being successful, by requiring individuals to take certain actions or give up statistically risky behaviors (such as smoking or drinking alcohol) in advance" -Paul
[2022-01-27 15:54:15] - mig: i mean, damned if you do, damned if you don't seems to apply here. if people are going to complain either way, maybe it matters not. ~a
[2022-01-27 15:53:52] - mig: yep. and plenty of americans loved it. ~a
[2022-01-27 15:48:12] - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/27/joe-biden-peter-doocy-incident-00000019 i'm confused, isn't a foul mouthed boorish president the thing we were complaining about the last four years? - mig
[2022-01-26 17:10:06] - mig: Especially considering the increase in risk from Myocarditis for those who catch COVID. -paul
[2022-01-26 15:20:13] - It's more akin to denying someone a liver transplant if they refuse to give up alcohol. - mig
[2022-01-26 15:19:34] - paul: i can imagine that having a heart transplant greatly increases your risk of fatal complications if you get covid. In that specific instance, I can see the medical reason for denial, rather than some sort of anti-vax "othering" - mig
[2022-01-26 02:49:50] - a: Yeah, you slipped up and just mentioned infections!
-Paul[2022-01-26 02:49:22] - a: "but then why call it out?" Because we discussed it as a hypothetical previously and now it is no longer hypothetical? Also, I think being suspicious alone is valid reason for pointing something out. Happens all the time. -Paul
[2022-01-26 02:48:13] - paul: that's fair and i was worried you might point that out. the flu isn't virulent so i probably should have just counted deaths??? ~a
[2022-01-26 02:47:07] - a: "well for the analogy to be complete..." I mean, the same kind of reasoning could be used for somebody who didn't get the flu vaccine, right? Hard to find worldwide numbers for people who caught the flu, but I see 0.009 to 0.04 billion for the US so worldwide it is likely close. -Paul
[2022-01-26 02:44:47] - paul: it can be valid *and* suspicious, of course, but then why call it out? it's valid. ~a
[2022-01-26 02:43:40] - Daniel: Sure, but they often aren't reasons that also happen to be hot-button political topics. I'm not saying that's the case here, as the medical reasoning sounds valid, but it just sounds a little suspicious. -Paul
[2022-01-25 21:05:20] - paul: People get denied transplants for lots of reasons. -Daniel
[2022-01-25 21:04:28] - paul: "over other missing vaccines" well for the analogy to be complete, it would be like being denied a transplant over refusing the mumps vaccine during a worldwide mumps outbreak where 0.25 billion people were catching the mumps every year. ~a
[2022-01-25 20:48:01] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/25/heart-transplant-patient-refusing-covid-19-vaccine Not sure if it was purely hypothetical before, but it isn't anymore. The medical reasoning sounds plausible, but I wonder if they would (or have) denied a transplant before over other missing vaccines. -Paul
[2022-01-25 20:36:36] - a: "depending on what the tracking is supposed to accomplish" Yeah, this is the big question. Are we trying to measure deaths solely from the virus? From the pandemic as a whole? From our reaction to it? Depending on what we are looking for, it's either a decent metric or a fairly faulty one. -Paul
[2022-01-25 18:47:47] - paul: i feel like the only things that we can all agree shouldn't be counted in are things truly unrelated. so (say, hypothetically) a huge change in heart attack deaths that were somehow completely unrelated to the pandemic. it's a hypothetical, so i don't think that has happened here, but something like that could have happened (or is happening). ~a
[2022-01-25 18:45:18] - paul: ok. i guess this might too much nuance, but the changes to auto-deaths and the changes to suicides/cancer/heart attack/etc . . . shouldn't they be counted in? (depending on what the tracking is supposed to accomplish) ~a
[2022-01-25 18:18:55] - paul: yeah, ok. on both accounts. i don't really have a reply to either one yet. they both make sense. the thing regarding the "peak" one for me personally . . . is that i was expecting my bond-percent to go up a lot, when the prices of stocks went down. and i didn't see that happen. and i'm not sure why, but i'll try to figure it out, i guess. ~a
[2022-01-25 17:42:09] - a: Yeah, I don't know why Feb 2021 was the peak for me. Having trouble finding large positions of mine that peaked then. I think it actually might have been a bunch of my smaller positions. -Paul
[2022-01-25 17:41:25] - a: "isn't the best way to get a nuanced view to look at excess deaths?" I don't know but I do suspect excess deaths is a bad metric too (at least if we're just trying to count COVID deaths). I'm guessing we had far less auto deaths during lockdown, for example, and I know there's been theories of increases in suicide and things like heart attack / cancer / etc from people not going to the hospital when they should. -Paul
[2022-01-25 15:55:29] - paul/mig: isn't the best way to get a nuanced view to look at excess deaths? doesn't the under-counting of covid deaths severely overshadow over-counting of covid deaths? ~a
[2022-01-25 15:54:02] - paul: i looked at arkk's top 25 holdings and they're all tech. so then i looked for a tech index. nope, tech indexes still peak in november
~a[2022-01-25 15:53:56] - paul: I think this is honestly a function of omnicron wave specifically more than anything else. - mig
[2022-01-25 15:53:44] - paul: gotcha, yeah. i have some arkk so i feel you. ~a
[2022-01-25 15:02:18] - a: The index of ARKK? I'm half joking, but for awhile my portfolio was going down even as the Nasdaq was rising (or staying flat). My portfolio seems to track ARKK more than the Nasdaq or any real index. -Paul
[2022-01-25 14:14:21] - paul: it's weird you mention "the" high is february. what indexes put a high anywhere near february? S&p high is in January! russell 2000 and 3000 are november and december. nasdaq november. MCSI world december. mid-cap ex-us was the only index i could find that didn't have a high in the past two months. i guess you had a few stocks that did badly in 2021, but there wasn't much of a high at the beginning of 2021 that i can find? ~a
[2022-01-25 13:42:47] - Re: Fantasy Investing. My portfolio has taken a HUGE pounding. I'm down something like 50% from the highs in February 2021. The pullback so far seems concentrated in precisely the stocks I favor most.
-Paul[2022-01-25 13:42:00] - mig: Re: Incidental COVID cases. It's interesting how now it's apparently acceptable to be nuanced about stuff like this when before just suggesting that we might be overcounting COVID deaths because we assume everybody who has COVID dies from it (and not a comorbidity) was dangerously discounting the disease. -Paul
[2022-01-25 02:59:59] - https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/973018246432673792 seems people thought so when orange man was around. - mig
[2022-01-25 02:57:17] - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/an-irate-biden-curses-fox-news-reporter-after-he-asks-about-inflation-2022-01-25/ an “assault” on the free press, is it not? - mig
[2022-01-25 02:57:13] - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/an-irate-biden-curses-fox-news-reporter-after-he-asks-about-inflation-2022-01-25/ an “assault” on the free press, is it not? - mig
[2022-01-25 02:08:48] - a: daniel summarized the gist of it. My understanding is they do get counted in the overall statistics but not sure if thats 100% true. - mig
[2022-01-24 19:53:39] - like, imagine if they were advertising "viagr/a tablets for human". ha. ~a
[2022-01-24 19:51:14] - "ivermectin tablets for human". lol, my favorite spam on the message board so far. best part is that they have to be specific. ~a
[2022-01-24 19:20:56] - i guess this makes sense? if an american do some heinous shit outside of the united states, you should be prosecuted *there*, right? it makes sense in my head, but i haven't really considered this situation before so please correct me. you do some evil supply chain stuff, you get your ass extradited? ~a
[2022-01-24 17:14:16] - daniel: if mark (or dewey) come here i can ignore email?
i'm free every night. ~a[2022-01-24 17:13:48] - also mig or aaron if you want to join! -Daniel
[2022-01-24 17:13:26] - paul / a: SC2? (just poking since mark mentioned tonight as an option) -Daniel
prev <-> next