prev <-> next
[2022-02-24 03:13:10] - a: "can you even pick a single number that would even make sense?" I'm not sure what you mean? What wouldn't make sense about my number? Is your point that if we spread the burden of government spending equally it would be really high? Because if that's your point, I totally agree! -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:10:23] - paul: ok using that definition, you think everybody should pay $100 in taxes per year, and not a penny more. $1000 yer year? can you even pick a single number that would even make sense? ~a
[2022-02-24 03:09:39] - a: I don't think any of those examples are ones where most people think they are fair and equal. They might think it's the right thing to do. But fair and equal? Those seem like some of the last words to describe it. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:08:48] - paul: oh, i forgot about fha loans. reduced price gas bills and electric bills are a thing in arlington and alexandria, do you not have them in fairfax county? ~a
[2022-02-24 03:08:04] - a: "how would you define fair?" The traditional way? The same? If two people came into my store to buy a hammer, I would charge them the same. In my will, my money is supposed to be divided up equally among my kinds. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:07:06] - paul: oh, i can. reduced-price and free lunch programs in schools. school breakfast systems. nutrition assistance. canned food drives. snapp cards. soup kitchens. homeless shelters. housing programs. block grants. social security. medicaid. college scholarships (some of them). and this is just off the top of my head. i'm sure there's a shit-ton of others. how would you define fair or equitable in this context? ~a
[2022-02-24 03:03:50] - Daniel: But assuming you mean I don't think we should be using taxation as a way to try to even out everybody's level of wealth... then yes, that is accurate. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:02:55] - Daniel: "I think one of the things I remember was that Paul wanted equal taxes not equitable taxes" I think I know what you're getting at in terms of "equitable taxes", but it's a weird term to me considering the definition of equitable is: "fair and impartial" -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:01:16] - a: I honestly can't think of any other context where it would be considered fair and equal to treat two people differently based on their financial status. And you're not even talking about charging one group more in absolute terms, but a higher percentage too! -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:00:26] - paul: how would you define fair? or . . . equitable? in this context? ~a
[2022-02-24 02:59:39] - a: "to do this you *must* make sure the wealthier are paying a higher percentage of their income" I know we can quibble a bit around definitions of words, but to me, that is almost the exact opposite of the definition of "fair" and "equal". -Paul
[2022-02-23 21:57:57] - I think one of the things I remember was that Paul wanted equal taxes not equitable taxes. But I might be misremembering / putting words in his mouth. -Daniel
[2022-02-23 20:28:55] - paul: "fundamental objection to people not paying income tax" no. "Didn't know it was reserved to certain groups" that is right. ~a
[2022-02-23 20:28:51] - paul: "How about we just treat people fairly and equally?" to do this you *must* make sure the wealthier are paying a higher percentage of their income. making the taxes less complicated at the expense of treating people less fairly is not worth it, of course. but i think you can do both. ~a
[2022-02-23 20:26:28] - a: How about we just treat people fairly and equally? I care much less about making sure the wealthier are paying more and much more about untangling the complete and total complicated mess that is our tax code. But we don't need to go into that again. I just thought you had a fundamental objection to people not paying income tax. Didn't know it was reserved to certain groups.
-Paul[2022-02-23 19:52:25] - a: that is reasonable, mostly. - mig
[2022-02-23 19:50:30] - paul: seems simple enough, right? ~a
[2022-02-23 19:50:05] - paul: i'd like people with a huge earned income (or passive income) should pay a higher percentage of their earned income (or passive income) than people with a tiny earned income (or passive income). ~a
[2022-02-23 19:49:47] - a: they can certainly be swayed for Trump, but I think he's throwing away the support of people who would be easy gets just for the sake of his own personal indulgences. - mig
[2022-02-23 19:48:31] - paul: "some people would pay nothing". ah yes. i think rich motherfuckers, rolling in fucking fat stacks of cash every night when they go to bed, should all pay something. but do i care if a struggling teacher, or janitor, or retail worker, or food service employee, is paying taxes? nah, i don't really care. ~a
[2022-02-23 19:46:30] - a: I thought you were mad at my suggestion for eliminating capital gains taxes because some people would pay nothing. I guess it's a difference of income tax vs all federal taxes? I want us to be able to simplify taxes to a degree to where the IRS isn't underfunded and it can be cut by 50% (and TurboTax isn't necessary anymore too). -Paul
[2022-02-23 19:37:38] - "most people have immovable opinions on him one way or the other" while this is true, he is polarizing, there are still people on the fence. those people can be swayed for or against trump (or brandon, or whoever). ~a
[2022-02-23 19:36:45] - paul: i usually think we should simplify taxes by having the irs tell us how much we owe, have way fewer deductions, and i'd like to simplify capital gains a bunch. "immediately cut the IRS funding and workforce by 50%" is the stupidest thing i've seen recently. the irs is already criminally underfunded: they already can't enforce the tax code as it's written today. ~a
[2022-02-23 19:36:28] - paul: everybody should pay income tax is something i'm neither for nor against. ~a
[2022-02-23 19:36:24] - a: Trump? I dunno. At this point I don't know what moves his numbers significantly. Feels like most people have immovable opinions on him one way or the other. -Paul
[2022-02-23 19:31:18] - a: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/rick-scott-plan-republicans/index.html A lot of these proposals elicit eye-rolls from me, but the "everybody should pay income tax" sounds like something you might be in favor of.
-Paul[2022-02-23 19:23:32] - paul: admit, though, that it's going to help his poll numbers for 2024. ~a
[2022-02-23 19:22:26] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/23/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-joe-biden/index.html Not a good look when a former US President continuously compliments aggressive actions by an authoritarian leader. -Paul
[2022-02-23 16:04:56] - paul: 1. you should probably have a defined process for handling cash payouts and stock payouts. 2. if you don't have a system defined (or even if you do) you might want to ask the holder what they want to happen to their shares (maybe the three choices should be holding it in cash, holding it in shares of the purchaser (amd), and holding it in s&p500 or similar). ~a
[2022-02-23 16:01:17] - paul: yeah, it's up to you. do shareholders get shares of amd? or do shareholders get a cash payout? ~a
[2022-02-23 15:59:26] - a: Just realized that AMD apparently bought XLNX? $194.92 a share? So I should probably hard-code that into the fantasy investing tracking, eh? -Paul
[2022-02-23 15:12:25] - a: Hehe, I didn't even think about that. Sorry! I guess when you phrase it that way (difficult/awkward to get from a doctor), it makes sense. I guess I was just surprised none of it was like heroin or marijuana.... it was just legal medicine to help you get a boner or cure your COVID (kidding!) -Paul
[2022-02-23 15:11:13] - paul: if you want to see the output, you can look here, or look at your javascript console. you can see the work it's doing, and that work gets submitted with your comment. the part that's not enabled yet is the actual enforcement that all comments have a proof. but, i do log which comments don't have it. so far they've all been spam. ~a
[2022-02-23 15:06:15] - paul: i don't remember if i discussed this, but i've half-way finished a proof-of-work system for filtering spam. most spam bots do not run javascript, and even if they did, they wouldn't run javascript for very long (in milliseconds). so, you can take advantage of that, and implement a proof-of-work system (like in bitcoin). it's sorta lame because you're asking even smartphones to do some javascript work before you can post. ~a
[2022-02-23 15:02:51] - paul: i probably specifically removed cialis so we could talk about it. yeah, when people want to get weird drugs online they'll always be drugs that they'd have a difficult/awkward time getting from a doctor: penis drugs and drugs that go against normal medical guidance. ~a
[2022-02-23 14:58:54] - oh wow paul, you just used a ton of words that i used to filter out. i'm surprised that your comment just came through! ~a
[2022-02-23 14:58:23] - Here's a weird thing I've noticed. Paulvsthemarket.com gets a ton of spam comments that I have to filter out. Almost always around buying prescription drugs. Cialis is a common one. Lately, though? Ivermectin is giving it a run for its money. Such a weird combo. -Paul
[2022-02-22 13:28:50] - 20 22 02 22
[2022-02-18 20:28:42] - I agree a bit with Miguel about how the message board is nicely different in that it's not so exclusively an echo chamber, but also that people seem to mostly be able to debate calmly and approach things with an open mind. I like to try to change people's mind rather than just echoing agreed points, which hasn't worked so well on Facebook.
-Paul[2022-02-18 20:22:49] - paul: you are right. i remembered it incorrectly. ~a
[2022-02-18 20:20:12] - a: If I ever said the CDC was wrong about Ivermectin, then that was a mistake because as far as I knew, at best, the jury was still out. I meant to have questioned whether this would be another thing the powers that be (not necessarily specifically or exclusively the CDC) turned out to be wrong about. -Paul
[2022-02-18 19:11:24] - paul: they did a randomized study on efficacy of ivermectin. you had mentioned that ivermectin was a thing that the cdc had called incorrectly: but they actually had only said that there was no data that backed up its use. well, now there is some data. ~a
[2022-02-18 19:04:06] - mig: you and paul are pretty much 100% "amg democrats are teh nazi devils amirite", and maybe that has gotten kinda tiresome? ~a
[2022-02-18 19:02:53] - I don't really dunk on all that often because I feel like it's just echo chamber-y. And to be quite honest, every other chat group I'm in that has political discussions is pretty much 100% "amg republicans are teh nazi devils amirite", so it feels kind of ... tiresome? - mig
[2022-02-18 18:59:51] - paul: i think it saves it by default? i doubt i would have turned that on or something. i have this directory on my stupid windows drive with a bazillion files in it: Users/adrian/Documents/StarCraft\ II/Accounts/56984276/1-S2-1-1072076/Replays/Multiplayer/. if you have that directory, save the files in it, you might be able to mine data from them. ~a
[2022-02-18 18:55:50] - a: "i have every replay i've been in for the past 3 or so years" How did you get that? Would be awesome if I could get some historical data. -Paul
[2022-02-18 18:40:31] - wow, i've been spending too much time in slack. forgot the "~a". ~a
[2022-02-18 18:40:08] - uuuuh, i have every replay i've been in for the past 3 or so years, and a command-line tool that can extract teammates. i'm not sure if i can find out who won or not.
[2022-02-18 18:29:37] - Random topic change, but because I was so disappointed with how SC2 handles stats, I decided going forward I'm going to start tracking my own stats in a Google sheet. I'm planning on tracking day, race played, type of game (3v3 ranked? 2v2 custom? direct strike?), if somebody is archon'd with me, and my teammates. Anything else I should track? -Paul
[2022-02-18 17:44:12] - paul: "I don't think it'll lead to interesting discussions" interesting discussions are interesting . . . but i don't think interestingness is the only metric of a good discussion. ~a
[2022-02-18 17:41:44] - paul: yeah. huh. i thought it was just gofundme making some decision based on their TOS. i was very wrong. i don't think the (canadian) federal government should be affecting these banking transactions. this is very anti-first-amendment (canada has section 2 of their bill of rights that addresses similar situations as our 1st amendment). ~a
[2022-02-18 17:39:08] - a: "i'll try to post more about democrats being hypocritical assholes if you try to post more about republicans being hypocritical assholes. deal?" Uh, sure? I don't think it'll lead to interesting discussions but... Let's try to scale back no-knock raids? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Amir_Locke -Paul
[2022-02-18 17:37:37] - a: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-conservative-swastikas-1.6354970 Although Trudeau apparently does love to throw out claims that the protesters are nazis and conferederates, apparently. -Paul
[2022-02-18 17:36:16] - Whoops, apparently I am late and some of this has been covered. Either way, I'm not sure the "peaceful" angle is the important one? It sounds like we can all agree that most of the protests in question were "mostly peaceful"? Most of the rhetoric I am hearing as justification for freezing bank accounts and arresting people is because these protests are gumming up commerce. -Paul
[2022-02-18 17:34:13] - a: "did trudeau back the blm protests that got violent?" No idea. The article that was posted was about some sort of farmer's protest? Actually, the article does say: "This is a politician who supported the Black Lives Matter protests even when they took an anarchic and violent turn in the United States." -Paul
[2022-02-18 15:20:50] - mig: wait, rape? fuck, that story is a bit crazy. she was going to the farmers protests (2021), and accused two men of rape, but then died of covid19. ~a
[2022-02-18 05:18:31] - a: there's the protest in india linked earlier that Trudeau supported enthusiastically that is pretty similar in tactics to the trucker protest. Trudeau hasn't hesitated to call the trucker protest every terrible name under the sun, including violent. While I wouldn't personally call either protests "violent", by Trudeau's own standards, he has supported violence by his support of the protest in india. - mig
[2022-02-18 01:23:43] - mig: do you have an example of a violent protest that he promoted or celebrated? ~a
[2022-02-17 23:21:14] - a: "trudeau hasn't promoted or celebrated any violent protests" how are we defining "violent protests"? I feel like we may differ on this. - mig
[2022-02-17 23:15:58] - Like I don't fucking care that the BLM protests were "mostly peaceful". The ones that weren't did a pretty large fucking amount of damage. Likewise with the 1/6 attack. It didn't matter what % of the people went into the capital. What happened there was really fucking bad. - mig
[2022-02-17 23:13:09] - a: "this protest has had (some) violence and (some) property destruction." well yes. Just about any large scale protest will have some degree of those elements. I do feel the general scale of the violence is a more important matter though, which is why I harp on the coverage on BLM protests a lot. - mig
[2022-02-17 22:46:05] - mig: you also aren't disagreeing with what i said, right? this protest has had (some) violence and (some) property destruction. and, unless i missed it, trudeau hasn't promoted or celebrated any violent protests. ~a
[2022-02-17 22:16:58] - mig: it's weird you keep pointing at blm protests as a measuring stick. of course there is less violence: there are way fewer people. this is a protest with a few thousand people. a more comparable protest in size of people (1000ish) is the january 6th protest at the capitol. you're right, that there is less violence here, than at the january 6th protest. ~a
[2022-02-17 21:07:59] - a: "i can find information that this protest has included a fair amount of violence." I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that Ottawa isn't burning to the ground right now, unlike other places where BLM has been. - mig
[2022-02-17 20:19:32] - paul: "i just don't usually bring it up with republicans because I know we all agree". i don't like this logic because it makes it seem like you have a giant bias. i'll try to post more about democrats being hypocritical assholes if you try to post more about republicans being hypocritical assholes. deal? ~a
[2022-02-17 20:18:19] - paul: did trudeau back the blm protests that got violent? i can't find anything on that. i can find information that this protest has included a fair amount of violence. i'm not sure if it's more or less (per person) than what the blm protests saw, but i did find: according to the bbc there has been, property damage. "one officer was attacked", and there are news reports of "rock-throwing" and "property damage". ~a
[2022-02-17 20:13:57] - a: "it does seem like you always seem to be mad at the liberals when that happens?" When people are being hypocrites? I'm mad whenever I see it. I just don't usually bring it up with Republicans because I know we all agree (is it worth posting a link saying Republicans are awful at cutting spending?) -Paul
[2022-02-17 20:09:19] - a: "has it happened here?" Isn't that what we were talking about with Trudeau (and others)? He was all for peaceful protest... until it was a protest he didn't approve of. Heck, the headline of the linked article contains the word, "Hypocrisy". -Paul
[2022-02-17 19:45:06] - paul: it does suck when both sides are being hypocrites. then i don't know who to be mad at. but, it does seem like you always seem to be mad at the liberals when that happens? ~a
[2022-02-17 19:43:24] - paul: "It's okay if we do it but bad if others do it". no, i agree that is bad. no, it's not better. "do as i say not as i do" is bad. but i'll argue none of that has happened here. has it happened here? ~a
[2022-02-17 19:42:31] - paul: nato. russia says "western military districts had completed their exercises and were returning to their permanent bases". nato says no: "on the contrary, it appears that russia continues the military build-up". also here's some imagery and maps that confirm that there are large-scale troops massing. ~a
[2022-02-17 19:39:38] - a: "i'm not sure that has happened here" Okay, so if not hypocrisy, it's just: "It's okay if we do it but bad if others do it"? Is that better? Do as I say not as I do? -Paul
[2022-02-17 19:38:45] - a: "i think everybody has" Are we talking about people or countries? As you said, I have seen Ukraine make a few comments about American rhetoric being a little overstated. Haven't seen a lot of talk either way from European leaders. In terms of America, it seems to have been all from Biden. Are there other prominent people warning about Russian invasion? -Paul
[2022-02-17 18:40:04] - paul: "isn't this clearly hypocrisy". if you specifically denounce the thing that you do, then it's hypocrisy. but i'm not sure that has happened here. ~a
[2022-02-17 18:38:20] - paul: biden has . . . ? i think everybody has. is anybody other than russia (and maybe ukrane, weirdly enough), saying that russia is NOT about to invake ukrane? i mean, hell, they've done it before, and it wasn't even that long ago. ~a
[2022-02-17 16:51:41] - Biden has made a lot of noise about an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Who thinks we will actually see it? I tend to think no. -Paul
[2022-02-17 16:51:09] - a: Neither situation is wrong? "if one side is allowed to use a dumb rule to decide what is allowed/good, why can't the other side use it?" By your own words, it's dumb. Isn't this clearly hypocrisy? I would argue hypocrisy is very clearly wrong. -Paul
[2022-02-16 14:53:52] - paul: it's not "two wrongs make a right", if neither situation is "wrong". ~a
[2022-02-16 14:53:19] - paul: you don't agree with "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? ~a
[2022-02-16 14:51:12] - paul/mig: you can have "self rated" happiness, like a survey. this can be biased, but is still useful data. you can have other various stand-ins: fewer antidepressants prescribed. this can be biased too, but again, is useful data in its own right. ~a
[2022-02-16 14:50:11] - a: This is high on the list of why I pretty equally hate both sides. Not only do they not stick to principles, but their number one excuse for why they are allowed to do bad things is because the other side did it. I don't care! It was wrong and dumb when they did it too. That doesn't excuse you for doing it. -Paul
[2022-02-16 14:48:27] - a: "this seems to be a common theme in politics, though. if one side is allowed to use a dumb rule to decide what is allowed/good, why can't the other side use it?" This thinking boggles my mind. Two wrongs make a right? I thought "they started it" was a stupid kid's excuse. -Paul
[2022-02-16 14:47:27] - a: But, yeah, I think most Americans could do with more exercise, me included. I'm acutely aware of how many hours I sit in front of my computer at home only to follow it up by sitting in front of a TV or a computer later in the evening. I need to get out more! -Paul
[2022-02-16 14:46:24] - a: Seems pretty likely exercise would lead to lower rates of obesity and I'm willing to believe causation between exercise (or at least levels of fitness) and lower rates of depression. I agree with Miguel that the happiness measurement always seems a little weird to me because it seems super hard to measure. -Paul
[2022-02-16 14:11:56] - mig: "playing with situational ethics". this seems to be a common theme in politics, though. if one side is allowed to use a dumb rule to decide what is allowed/good, why can't the other side use it? i mean the logic is sound. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. if you are allowed to fucking haul off annoying protesters for blocking roads, why can't we? it seems like it's behind ~90% of political disagreements. ~a
[2022-02-16 00:52:19] - Trudeau, especially is definitely guilty of this. - mig
[2022-02-16 00:49:16] - re: the dumb truck convoy blockade. I find it a little weird people are drawing the red line at "blocking traffic" because it seems like the people complaining about that now are playing with situational ethics. - mig
[2022-02-16 00:45:38] - a: for healthiest? I'd be willing to entertain causation. Happiness? How does one even measure that? - mig
[2022-02-15 20:17:44] - paul: (according to some random person on twitter) "dutch teens cycle an astonishing 2,000km per year (jfc, this is the average?). they also rank among the healthiest and happiest - with the lowest rates of obesity and antidepressant usage - on earth. this isn't coincidence...". thoughts? i doubt this is entirely correlation without any causation. ~a
[2022-02-15 15:18:07] - paul: regarding a decentralized custodial account, i'd have to think about that some. something similar to that exists. where you trust a set of humans to "correctly" approve and deny transfers. multisig is very flexible (N of M keys need to sign a transaction, where N<M or N==M, etc). ~a
[2022-02-15 15:14:58] - paul: yes and no? you lose the ability to keep your assets from being frozen *some*, but with the legacy banking system you're (more or less) forced into a local bank. with bitcoin, your custodian could be anywhere in the world. there are downsides to having a bank in a different jurisdiction, but there are upsides too. tl/dr you have more choice now, for better or worse. ~a
[2022-02-15 15:12:00] - a: Sure, but with custodial services you lose that decentralization and are susceptible to getting your assets frozen again, right? I guess I'm hoping for the impossible: decentralization WITH safeguards built in. I know that seems like a contradiction, but so did "digital" and "scarcity" before I learned about the blockchain. -Paul
[2022-02-15 15:02:59] - paul: sorta? with your bank, if you initiate a transfer to a scammer, you're likely to not see that money ever again. and with crypto, you can still have custodial services. the one does not negate the other. ~a
[2022-02-15 13:58:36] - a: I entirely agree, but there's also something to be said about having an extra layer of safety and security when it comes to fraud. Nice thing about centralized services like banks and credit cards is that you're usually not liable for fraudulent charges and whatnot. With crypto, you're likely SOL. -Paul
[2022-02-14 22:26:50] - don't want the government to decide where your money goes? use bitcoin. go ahead and freeze my funds then, buddy. ~a
[2022-02-14 22:21:20] - https://www.npr.org/2022/02/14/1080632899/bank-freezes-funds-canadian-border-protest Funds being frozen too. -Paul
[2022-02-14 21:52:44] - https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-police-response-protests-spotlight-after-key-bridge-us-cleared-2022-02-14/ Trudeau getting ready to act. -Paul
[2022-02-14 21:08:47] - daniel: . . . counter-protests are what you'll often end up with in that case? i.e. if "jews will not replace us" is your message, you should probably expect a counter-protest. ~a
[2022-02-14 21:00:14] - agreed. ~a
[2022-02-14 20:59:57] - I mean blocking off economic activity is a good way of projecting a message but that doesn't mean society tolerates it indefinitely. -Daniel
[2022-02-14 20:59:55] - isn't that what i said though? ~a
[2022-02-14 20:59:42] - yeah. sometimes. ~a
[2022-02-14 20:59:31] - "getting arrested is sometimes the cost of a safe non-violent protest?" sometimes? -Daniel
[2022-02-14 20:37:37] - Yeah, I see both sides. Obviously if I was a resident of Ottawa and just wanted to live my life without being hassled.... this is a giant pain and I get that makes it effective, but at some point I need to be able to just get to the grocery store no matter how non-violent you are being. -Paul
[2022-02-14 20:24:36] - for instance, letter from a birmingham jail literally had to be written from a jail cell. ~a
[2022-02-14 20:24:16] - daniel: "I think they should be dealt with in some capacity" mmmm. no. i disagree? when a protest becomes annoying (and even if it disturbs commerce) is exactly when it becomes effective. if you're protesting nonviolently and safely, i'm not sure the duration matters (to me). and if you're protesting illegally, it might still be the right thing to do? getting arrested is sometimes the cost of a safe non-violent protest? ~a
[2022-02-14 20:20:43] - I don't agree with the truck convoy but I do think by and large its a good approach. I think the part where it and other things in its vein will get push back is the duration. Like if they block the bridge long enough to actually cause real problems to the economy then I think they should be dealt with in some capacity. Similarly if a march walked through a downtown and blocked traffic for even a couple of days vs like a month. -Daniel
[2022-02-14 20:01:21] - paul: i'm not arguing that you could see the capitol from the whitehouse. i'm arguing that once you were at the capitol, there were a lot of chances for you to see the front doors and (eventually) that they were being opened. ~a
[2022-02-14 20:00:09] - paul: not everybody went from the whitehouse to the capitol. ~a
[2022-02-14 19:58:46] - a: Wasn't aware of logistics of the rally. I thought it involved a "march" from the rally to the capitol, so I assumed it was some distance away. -Paul
[2022-02-14 19:41:02] - paul: have you been there? the "violence" part i definitely agree with you on! but . . . the "capitol was being invaded" is a problem. the doors are basically at a giant "stage" visible from a lot of locations. there are almost zero vantage points where you wouldn't have been able to see people entering the capitol. especially in winter with no leaves on the deciduous trees. click around on google-street-view. ~a
[2022-02-14 19:31:05] - a: Seems fair, although I think my reaction in a situation like that would be "flight" 99% of the time. What I wonder is how many of the rally attendees even knew (at the time) that the capitol was being invaded or that there was violence. -Paul
[2022-02-14 19:16:06] - paul: i agree. i think attending a violent rally never makes you a bad person. but i think i'd pick it apart even further: being violent isn't the ONLY thing that can make you a bad person. if you see someone doing something (very) violent, and you don't immediately attempt to condemn/stop the violence, you are a bad person. (attempting to leave the situation is also fine if someone isn't in danger of dying, imo) ~a
[2022-02-14 19:13:44] - paul: "Not sure that makes a difference in terms of vaccinated, though" yaaaah. in both january 2020 and january 2021 i was unvaccinated. but yeah, oops. ~a
[2022-02-14 19:09:25] - omg yes sorry. i forgot it was 2022 already, fuck. ~a
[2022-02-14 19:09:09] - a: January of 2021, no? Not sure that makes a difference in terms of vaccinated, though. To be clear, I suspect I have very little in common politically with anybody who attended the rally, but the difference between merely attending and assaulting cops while invading the capitol is the difference between me thinking you are wrong politically and me thinking you are a bad person.
-Paul[2022-02-14 19:01:28] - yeah hmmm. sometimes i regret not going in. like everybody else i was watching it on tv, in horror. but, in the back i think it would have been a different perspective. (i did notice that nobody was wearing masks, and in january 2020 i was unvaccinated . . .) ~a
[2022-02-14 18:59:29] - a: I'm just pointing out the same consideration should be given to people who attended the Jan 6th rally (and obviously didn't invade the capital building). I was listening to a podcast where a reporter who was there at the rally stressed how chaotic it was because people in the back had no idea what was going on up front. -Paul
[2022-02-14 18:58:18] - a: "(do you see how this sounds?)" I get your point, and agree to an extent, but we spilled a lot of virtual ink here going over the finer points of "mostly peaceful" and how the violence in the BLM protests were largely the result of a tiny minority. -Paul
[2022-02-14 18:43:57] - paul: "the violent BLM protests" i do wonder what percentage of violent BLM protests were violent. (do you see how this sounds?) ~a
[2022-02-14 18:43:18] - paul: "I do wonder what percentage of rally attendees were violent" well history of riots/violent-protests, that percentage is rarely a focus (read, NEVER has been a focus, ever in history). ~a
[2022-02-14 18:43:02] - a: I think both Jan 6th and the violent BLM protests should condemned as not the right way to enact political change and a dangerous escalation of political disagreement. The Canada trucker convoy is an interesting contrast. Seems like it has involved a lot less violence but still some illegal actions like blocking roads/bridges. -Paul
[2022-02-14 18:39:53] - a: All, obviously, IMHO: "was january 6th "legitimate political discourse"?" Seems like an odd term to me. Gut reaction is no, but what exactly counts as legitimate? "was it "nonviolent and legal"?" Pretty obviously no, I would think, although I do wonder what percentage of rally attendees were violent. -Paul
[2022-02-14 18:21:47] - i think a lot about the (sometimes+rarely violent) protests from the summer before, and consider deeply how the two situations compare. should "a riot is the language of the unheard" apply to january 6th? would mlk jr consider a riot with a rightous cause to be legitimate political discourse? hell, before the rnc stament, has * anybody * ever considered a strictly violent protest to be legitimate political discourse? ~a
[2022-02-14 18:21:46] - i'm sure we've discussed this here, but after the rnc statement, i think this is back in the news: was january 6th "legitimate political discourse"? furthermore was it "nonviolent and legal"? (a draft of the rnc statement included "nonviolent and legal"). ~a
[2022-02-13 22:29:30] - Yeah at this point in life I'm pretty opposed to public money being used to fund major sports league stadiums / arenas. -Daniel
[2022-02-13 16:26:36] - a: "so whatever the opposite of your hope is, it sounds like that is what we're doing" Welcome to like 90% of my political positions.
-Paul[2022-02-11 21:36:52] - i started a reddit thread on this topic. i picked r/virginia even though it has less traffic than others because the other subs had already started a discussion on this. ~a
[2022-02-11 21:36:43] - it's spelled fuutballs. ~a
[2022-02-11 21:36:18] - nm, just saw he is endorsing the idea. well fuckballs. - mig
[2022-02-11 21:35:32] - it's being proposed by his own party. ~a
[2022-02-11 21:35:26] - why would you do that? ~a
[2022-02-11 21:35:13] - a: I hold out a little hope that Youngkin admin would be a little resistant to the idea. But it's a fleeting one. - mig
[2022-02-11 21:30:07] - paul: "I hope it has as little government funding / tax breaks as possible" we're going to pay for the whole thing i think, and there will be huge tax breaks (sales taxes will pay for the stadium). so whatever the opposite of your hope is, it sounds like that is what we're doing. ~a
[2022-02-11 21:05:16] - a: Yeah, from everything I've read government funding for stadiums is never a good deal (ie, it never pays for itself no matter how often people say it will) and that's not even counting the principle behind giving taxpayer money to billionaires. I don't know much about plans for a stadium in VA, but if it's going to happen, I hope it has as little government funding / tax breaks as possible. -Paul
[2022-02-11 19:00:20] - mig: it's looking like it'll happen: i doubt they'd go to these lengths if they thought it wasn't going to happen, right? regarding 66, all they have to do is add another lane. one more lane always fixes traffic problems. ~a
[2022-02-11 18:58:30] - a: i want nothing to do with a stadium in Virginia. Even with the general revulsion at having to pay for a stadium for a shithole of a team, 66 is already a fucking cesspool and it'll just be a fucking nuclear wasteland on game nights. - mig
[2022-02-11 18:27:29] - here's the language of the bill that's passing with a wide margin. the text looks concerning. "The Authority is exempt from the Personnel Act and the Public Procurement Act" aren't these the classic rules for thee but not for me? "The bill entitles the Authority to sales tax revenues from transactions at the stadium" wtf, no way. ~a
[2022-02-11 18:15:22] - worst of all, it's snyder that would be involved. who has a long track record. ~a
[2022-02-11 18:13:31] - memes! can we all agree, here, that a new stadium in virginia would be a bad idea? the money it does bring into the state would likely be negative. even if it does break-even, (which it won't), it definitely won't come anywhere close to paying back the billions in bonds that it'll create. it would not create jobs, but it would take up space better suited for literally anything else. ~a
[2022-02-11 18:01:41] - paul: it's funny when twitter is down, because my first thought was "where, besides twitter, would i go to see if a website was down?!"
i found it on reddit ~a[2022-02-11 17:34:16] - yep. ~a
[2022-02-11 17:29:21] - a: A lot of sketchy? Yeah, maybe. I don't know enough about it to say for sure, but it certainly seems like a raw deal for Afghanistan as a whole. -Paul
[2022-02-11 16:43:47] - paul: ok, thanks. yeah, i agree, but uhh, i think a little sketchy is an understatement. ~a
[2022-02-11 16:42:00] - a: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics/executive-order-afghanistan-9-11-humanitarian-aid/index.html Here is a non-pay-walled article. I think the concern is that this isn't just Taliban money... it's (at least indirectly) money that should belong to the people of Afghanistan. -Paul
[2022-02-11 16:29:42] - yeah . . . reading through the comments will be just a little biased, and have zero of the actual information from the article. ~a
[2022-02-11 16:28:12] - a: I can't read it either, I was reading through the twitter comments, which admittedly is a little dangerous. -Paul
[2022-02-11 16:10:48] - paul: as an example, i'll-gotten (illegally obtained) assets are often sold at auction and the proceeds go directly to the government. if these aren't illegally obtained assets, i'm not sure how this could be legal? ~a
[2022-02-11 16:08:46] - paul: i can't read the article. i assume it's frozen for a (legal) reason? ~a
[2022-02-11 15:54:11] - https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1492089973738287105 This seems a little sketchy. -Paul
[2022-02-11 15:17:14] - paul: good point. ~a
[2022-02-11 13:37:27] - mig: Because of the greedy meat producers and grocery stores trying to take advantage of you. -Paul
[2022-02-10 22:28:58] - mig: an interesting trend i noticed looking at a couple of graphs (like the one near the top of this article), is that people are spending less on "entertainment" (because covid). since people have more money for groceries, do you think maybe that could change the price of groceries? ~a
[2022-02-10 22:25:34] - mig: ah, ok. ~a
[2022-02-10 22:21:23] - a: just been noticing the impact on buying things. meat in particular. - mig
[2022-02-10 22:00:46] - a: I bought some last year with... uh.... 6% total return? Looks like it might stay at that rate for longer than I thought. -Paul
[2022-02-10 21:57:07] - paul: i'm still buying ibonds with literal 0% interest (plus inflation).
~a[2022-02-10 21:56:05] - I remember seeing some chart showing that 10 year US treasury rates were like 15% in the 80s. Wonder if we'll ever get close to that. Maybe time to save some money to buy treasuries? -Paul
[2022-02-10 21:53:22] - mig: "on a personal level, I've been definitely feeling the impact" can you be more specific? obviously 8% is a huge amount of inflation. i doubt it'll hold at this level for long, but i've been wrong before. fwiw, the inflation averaged over the past *two* years is 4%. which is exactly on par with historical averages ((281.93/258.68)**.5-1). ~a
[2022-02-10 21:48:38] - paul: the crazy thing imo is that there are cars with literally $20,000+ in tickets in dc, driving recklessly around in dc, and nobody seems to care. nobody except alfred carr and mary lehman. ~a
[2022-02-10 21:45:57] - paul: well, there are always huge downsides to ignoring tickets in other states. (you can't get a new drivers license or license plate or car registration or car title in some states. you sometimes get your car booted. you sometimes get your car towed). some people are ok with those punishments, i guess? i always pay speeding tickets. even in other countries! ~a
[2022-02-10 21:03:29] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/10/january-2022-cpi-inflation-rises-7point5percent-over-the-past-year-even-more-than-expected.html yikes. I know inflation gets talked about occasionally, but on a personal level, I've been definitely feeling the impact. - mig
[2022-02-10 20:59:41] - a: Aw, man. Is that true? I got a speeding ticket from a camera in MD a few months ago and paid it like an idiot. -Paul
[2022-02-10 19:52:14] - omg, finally . . . jeese. i really hope this passes. it's so crazy to me how many thousands of maryland and virginia people in cars are so reckless on a daily basis. and until . . . january 21st, everybody seemed fine with that? ~a
[2022-02-10 17:54:44] - paul: that's exactly what i would expect without running the study! the people with nothing to lose have a very slight (not sarcastic, it's literally small) bias. ~a
[2022-02-10 17:54:17] - paul: uuuhm. i clicked on your link, but that's a lot of text. can i ask you, are those two statements supposed to be opposites? if so, this data doesn't surprise me in the least! you're saying that 64% of people with children said go back to school and who cares about the virus, and slightly less than 64% (46%) of people without children said this??? ~a
[2022-02-10 17:45:32] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/politics/cnn-poll-biden-approval/index.html This part was interesting to me: "There is also a sharp divide between parents and non-parents on this question: 64% of people with children under the age of 18 said it was time to learn to live with the virus, while 54% of those without young children said stopping the spread must continue to be the highest priority." -Paul
[2022-02-10 16:49:15] - i'm fine losing . . . checks notes, $25. ~a
[2022-02-10 16:13:31] - a: Oh, wow. I should've known! I used to have shares myself. Haven't followed it since. This isn't the first time they had a catastrophic drop. Sorry to hear. -Paul
[2022-02-10 16:08:52] - yes, today. twou. i only have 5 shares, and my previous sells were all larger than my buys (way more than the rest of my cost basis), so i don't really care. but it's still funny. ~a
[2022-02-10 16:07:28] - a: That's impressive. Is it today? I'm not sure I know what company that might be. Nikola? -Paul
[2022-02-10 15:55:26] - paul: i have a few shares of a stock that just went -45% in one day! i'm not at all upset because i actually somehow made money on the deal. but, it appears that last few of my shares will get sold at a loss.
~a[2022-02-10 15:49:29] - paul: covid policy #0: "the null policy". don't be unhealthy.
~a[2022-02-10 15:48:48] - a: Oh, sure, definitely still the fault of Americans. Just not sure it could be an accurate reflection of our COVID policies. Not sure what a better metric might be. There probably isn't one, unfortunately. They're all flawed in different ways. -Paul
[2022-02-10 15:35:21] - paul: (devil's advocate, comorbidities still tells us that americans *and* their chosen politicians make shitty decisions, so even using your argument, we should definitely use deaths per person per day) what would you use instead? all of the other metrics seem to be much messier. i guess i could follow an argument that used a combination of multiple metrics. ~a
[2022-02-10 14:26:40] - a: Sorry. You're probably right. I worry about the deaths per person per day metric because I feel like it could be easily skewed by Americans' notorious tendency towards comorbidities like obesity and whatnot. -Paul
[2022-02-09 21:33:53] - paul: i do feel like we've discussed this before. ~a
[2022-02-09 21:29:49] - paul: since testing will never be 100% (and especially now will start to fall off) i feel like it is the metric with the most bang for the buck. of course, it'll be lagging by a few weeks. ~a
[2022-02-09 21:26:11] - paul: deaths per person per day. ~a
[2022-02-09 20:45:24] - a: "the US (and UK and Brazil) are almost always in the worst buckets" I'm curious, by which metric? Infections? Deaths? Deaths over infections? All of the above? -Paul
[2022-02-09 18:47:43] - a: Ah nice - seems to support an idea that masking helps given their low rates - though not conclusive. -Daniel
[2022-02-09 18:47:20] - daniel: i agree there are other factors. but at a certain point, you have to admit that any country should definitely avoid doing whatever the US is doing differently. the US (and UK and Brazil) are almost always in the worst buckets. ~a
[2022-02-09 18:41:28] - daniel: you're welcome
~a[2022-02-09 18:38:51] - i haven't looked at all but I wonder what the numbers looked like in S Korea / Japan where masking is already prevalent in terms of helping to inform that discussion (even though there are probably lots of other factors conflated in there). -Daniel
[2022-02-09 17:17:13] - a: And so far, as near as I can tell, Australia seems like they are doing better? Although it's weird because there seems like a difference between cases and deaths, which could also reflect vaccination rates? -Paul
[2022-02-09 17:11:40] - new zealand too. they ended their lockdowns when there were zero cases, and brought them back when there were only a handful of cases. ~a
[2022-02-09 17:02:31] - a: That seems fair (and safe). This seems like one of those unproveable things. To me, Australia is ultimately going to be our best hope for seeing if lockdowns work because they went pretty extreme (and are an island) so if any country is going to see better outcomes from lockdowns I would think it would be Australia. -Paul
[2022-02-09 16:05:59] - . . . there won't be substantive evidence to the contrary. ~a
[2022-02-09 15:24:48] - paul, i metaphorically bet that a year from now, we'll (still) work on the assumption that the lock-downs made an effective and positive difference at preventing covid spread. ~a
[2022-02-09 15:20:59] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/?sh=72f087271225 There's really no practical way of framing a bet, but anybody want to metaphorically bet if we find out a year from now that lockdowns were "ineffective" (in that they didn't make a big difference) at preventing COVID spread? -Paul
[2022-02-09 15:17:44] - sure. ~a
[2022-02-09 15:06:09] - https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1491425596580462593 If we're right about this idea of momentum.... can we agree it's less about the science and more about cold political calculation, then? -Paul
[2022-02-09 15:01:22] - “Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing.” ― Brandon Sanderson
[2022-02-09 14:57:34] - a: Yeah, I highly suspect that's the case. Anecdotally, there's been a few left-leaning people speaking out recently about how it's time to start getting back to normal and they have sometimes received support. -Paul
[2022-02-09 14:25:56] - paul: it could be a third thing: momentum. "the first officials to suggest rolling back restrictions are portrayed as callous or even murderous. then a few more officials follow suit and eventually it becomes completely uncontroversial" ~a
[2022-02-09 14:19:59] - https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1491226399855693824?t=YwvWUC3iRdGxFJLjTVqDlw&s=19 I'm genuinely curious if the science has changed in the past week (which is what I am hearing in other outlets)... or just the polling. I saw plenty of examples of people who were angrily against Youngkin's executive order and framed anybody who supported it as irresponsible and ignorant. Wonder if those people's opinions have changed. -Paul
[2022-02-09 14:18:14] - a: Yeah, I guess it's just surprising to me that the vaccines, which seem like they do a really good job individually, haven't seemed to have curbed overall deaths as much as I would've thought (I guess because the spread of infections has been bigger). Do we know if the vaccine (with or without booster) is shown to prevent Omicron spread? -Paul
[2022-02-08 22:00:47] - paul: i mostly looked here and had to google a bit to remember what the 2021-01 was called (i thought we had called them variants by then). also, something i noticed was the vaccine really didn't play much of a part in curbing anything until half-way through biden's 12.5 months. still, even today, only 1 out of 4 of americans have their booster. ~a
[2022-02-08 21:57:28] - paul: well, let's see. three reasons i can think of. 1. more time. 10 months vs 12.5 months. 25% more time matters, just a bit. 2. the deadliest virus per person per day (only), so far was actually the original. which was still raging through the inauguration. 3. omicron is deadlier than delta *per person, per day* (only. it's less deadly per case). delta seems irrelevant. ~a
[2022-02-08 20:47:53] - https://www.thedailybeast.com/with-800000-americans-dead-of-covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-under-biden-now-equal-those-under-trump I don't at all find it terribly interesting to count death totals under presidents, but I do find it interesting how the death totals during those time periods are so similar given stuff like vaccines should've been helping lately. Is the big reason the delta variant being deadlier? -Paul
[2022-02-08 16:54:38] - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/biden-covid-hospitalization-data-recalculate-00006341 - mig
[2022-02-07 22:03:41] - hah ok. ~a
[2022-02-07 22:03:22] - a: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314071/ "Because the reported minor increases in emergency department and hospitalization rates for falls were insignificant, the almost sevenfold increase in death rates from “other falls on the same level” strongly suggests an effect of improved reporting quality." -Paul
[2022-02-07 21:36:16] - paul: this doesn't answer your question literally, but does give insight into how they probably account for this issue you raise. ~a
[2022-02-07 21:35:39] - paul: "Deaths are classified using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). In 1999, the ICD Tenth Revision replaced the ICD Ninth Revision, which had been used from 1979 through 1998. Coding updates in the later revision resulted in approximately 5% fewer deaths being classified as motor vehicle traffic deaths, 2% more deaths being classified as drug poisoning deaths, and minimal change in the classification of fall- and ..." ~a
[2022-02-07 21:34:25] - Could it be that we're measuring "fall deaths" differently? Like, maybe if you fell and broke a hip and died a few days later it didn't get counted before but now we do? I'm always curious how we determine cause of death for things where it's not always clear. -Paul
[2022-02-07 20:49:24] - wow, one of them even endorsed the other (for a different candidacy). ~a
[2022-02-07 20:47:02] - wait, there are two people running for (dc) mayor that have the last name "white"? and . . . neither of them are white? somebody please write me an inappropriate joke about this. ~a
[2022-02-07 20:09:55] - a: Yeah I wonder what else would account for that. MAYBE GRAVITY IS INCREASING. I mean no, but it sounds like a fun sci fi story. -Daniel
[2022-02-07 18:52:14] - daniel: here's another image that shows the context (obvious real takeaway here is that recreational drug use is really a major problem today, but still fall deaths surprised me). ~a
[2022-02-07 18:51:03] - daniel: it's up 35% in 10 years (2007-2016). the life expectancy hasn't changed drastically from 2007 to 2016. ~a
[2022-02-07 18:50:02] - no it's changing too quickly for that. ~a
[2022-02-07 18:49:48] - a: kinda makes sense to me. As we reduce other medical causes of death people get older and more frail. Falling over is pretty terrible once you get old enough. Broken hips are super bad but any broken bones is super hard to deal with at that age. -Daniel
[2022-02-07 18:44:08] - uuuhm. wtf? this is real? why are fall deaths going up so much. they're behind, but, catching up with, other common causes of death (like firearm and motor vehicle). i assume poor diet and exercise is a cause, but i guess maybe not? ~a
[2022-02-07 16:58:27] - paul: to be clear i wasn't serious when i claimed $7 more was sexism. and . . . i obviously think anybody can buy or use the pink one, but agree that very few adults will buy the pink one for their male children. thoughts can be sexist i think, but that probably doesn't matter since you don't become sexist person. i'm not a kid anymore, but i enjoy wearing pink and green biking clothes. young girls seem to like my biking clothes.
~a[2022-02-07 16:56:40] - a dollar is an interesting price for a book. i wonder how much amazon pays in credit-card fees for $1 purchases. ~a
[2022-02-07 16:38:10] - Its a short story (something like 100 pages? not 100%) so not a huge commitment. -Daniel
[2022-02-07 16:37:26] - Random product plug but this is one of my favorite stories by one of my favorite authors that you can read for a dollar. Worth checking out if have any interest in reading: https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Soul-Elantris-Book-ebook/dp/B00A1XOPE8/ -Daniel
[2022-02-07 16:36:42] - Also that I would agree with the sexist true sentiment. -Daniel
[2022-02-07 16:36:23] - In this case I would argue that its both sexist and true. -Daniel
[2022-02-07 16:26:19] - a: Not sure. can thoughts be sexist? Or just actions? I would say thoughts can be sexist. -Paul
[2022-02-07 16:22:11] - it is sexist to think certain things? ~a
[2022-02-07 16:21:32] - a: I would expect the pink one to generally be more popular with one gender over another, but I also think that's supposedly sexist to think? -Paul
[2022-02-07 16:20:55] - "Gender Unisex" -Paul
[2022-02-07 16:20:45] - do you expect a boy to use the pink one? ~a
[2022-02-07 16:19:56] - a: I just thought about this, but did the pink one anywhere say it was for women? Or were you just being sexist assuming only a certain gender would want the pink one?
-Paul[2022-02-07 13:14:57] - the worst part might be her response to the criticism, where she scolds people for criticizing her during black history month, and claims it's a "false political attack" (how is it false, is she claiming someone doctored the photos of her that she posted from her own fucking account?). - mig
[2022-02-07 04:25:21] - yeah, it sucks. hypocrisy is everywhere. sorry paul. i'm not being sarcastic either . . . it really does suck, and i feel really bad that kids have to go through this. it's kinda terrible and there definitely are no right answers. except, i guess, don't be so fucking hypocritical. ~a
[2022-02-07 04:22:26] - a: I don't even know if she is necessarily super pro-mask. It's just... I guess a little frustrating how I keep hearing from everybody about how important it is that my kids stay masked up at all times in school and then there's routinely stuff like this. -Paul
[2022-02-07 04:21:07] - a: I... guess? I'm not sure I get the implication. Was there a Republican governor that broke their own mask mandate lately? Or a Republican lawmaker aiding in a violent protest after condemning them? -Paul
[2022-02-07 03:53:02] - well, that seems super hypocritical. i guess an apt analogy would be a republican governor breaking their own mask mandates? or a republican lawmaker aiding in a violent protest? (i'm not trying to excuse aoc or abrams, but just some analogies for context) ~a
[2022-02-06 21:44:02] - a: Stacey Abrams. It's hard to imagine exactly the rationale that would explain why all the kids behind her need masking but she doesn't. Similar vibes to other events like the Met Gala earlier (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9989583/Social-media-rages-hypocrtical-Met-Gala-listers-AOC-NOT-wearing-masks.html) -Paul
[2022-02-06 21:33:46] - who's that? ~a
[2022-02-06 19:19:51] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FK68J1GXEAAbg9A?format=jpg&name=medium
[2022-02-06 19:19:36] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FK68J1GXEAAbg9A rules are only for normies. - mig
[2022-02-05 18:08:10] - it does mean that eventually (not today, but when the spammers come back) you won't be able to disable javascript on the message board if you want to post. ~a
[2022-02-05 18:07:34] - sorry if you've been noticing a lot of spam on the message board the last few months. i made a whole bunch of spam changes. the spam should be much less now, and even when they come back in force, i have a shit-ton of new tools for dealing with them. i decided to go the "proof of work" path (bring up the javascript console if you wanna see it in the logs). it's been pretty interesting actually, usually i hate anti-spam code! ~a
[2022-02-03 22:04:17] - of course the pink one is $7 more. fucking sexism. ~a
[2022-02-03 21:55:09] - a: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Hommoo-12V-Kids-Electric-Ride-On-Car-Licensed-Lamborghini-Toy-Car-with-Remote-Control-Orange/546271089 Or is it? -Paul
[2022-02-03 21:39:41] - $470? hmmm . . . yeah, what would i spend that on? probably bike stuff. it's not quite lambo money. ~a
[2022-02-03 21:37:43] - a: That one share is still up enough for you to buy a nice watch with the gains.
-Paulprev <-> next