prev <-> next
[2022-04-13 17:27:13] - yep it's not new. i think some browsers have removed it. if you click on the "DNT" link it mentions that there are future proposals in the works that will maybe have legal backing (in california). ~a
[2022-04-13 13:50:41] - a: Huh, okay. Was that from awhile ago? I vaguely recall something like that. -Paul
[2022-04-13 13:50:02] - a: Tuttle twins has been in the news a bit the past week or so: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/opinions/children-literature-disney-desantis-tuttle-twins-hemmer/index.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg7i7f31hgk . You were right to be worried, the right is trying to brainwash kids! -Paul
[2022-04-13 13:25:38] - paul: you are given that information with the intent that you respect it (though i don't think it's legally binding), yes. it's in your browser settings (it's passed as an http header DNT which wikipedia says is "no longer official"). ~a
[2022-04-13 12:49:09] - a: Wait, irony aside, there is some way to track who wants to be tracked or not? -Paul
[2022-04-12 23:52:05] - not surprisingly, spammers don't care if you track them or not. ~a
[2022-04-12 23:51:13] - oops, when scrubbing for spammers . . . i * accidentally * created a record of who's requesting "do not track" and who is not. i'm literally tracking who asked not to be tracked and who didn't. ~a
[2022-04-12 23:19:33] - it appears to censor "fuckcars", "fuckjoshduggar", and "fucknfts". ~a
[2022-04-12 23:00:16] - daniel: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vgd-w71RKTiB0wgkrFmorxugJL4IN_GI/view?usp=sharing it's a profanity overlay for place. download it and you can overlay it over the place image to censor the profanity. ~a
[2022-04-12 22:07:56] - daniel: That there's somebody hand on the wheel is something I think that's something everyone understands though. Personally, I think Reich is attacking an argument nobody is making. - mig
[2022-04-12 16:27:30] - Daniel: Like Miguel said, he seems to be basically saying anything he doesn't like is the same. He doesn't like Putin, and he doesn't like Musk, ergo... You can say a lot of things about Musk, but his approach to what kind of speech can or should be permitted on twitter would almost certainly be polar opposite of Putin. -Paul
[2022-04-12 16:26:08] - Daniel: Yeah, I think the most charitable interpretation of his article is that somebody always has to control the internet, and he would rather HIS people control it instead of Musk, and that the way Musk wants to control the internet is similar to how Putin would? That last part is where he completely lost me. -Paul
[2022-04-12 16:05:55] - I don't think he is saying Musk = Putin. Just that both have an interest (arguably, I mean he is making the case that Musk does) in having an ability to control 'the internet' - though I would strongly disagree that Twitter = 'the internet' -Daniel
[2022-04-12 16:00:21] - -Daniel
[2022-04-12 16:00:20] - It seems more to me that he is implying there is no 'open' or 'free' internet, that someone's hand is always on the wheel ("Someone has to decide on the algorithms in every platform – how they’re designed, how they evolve, what they reveal and what they hide.") and he is concerned about Musk buying his way to having it be his hand. But that does seem to imply on some level he is more ok with whoever currently has their hand on the wheel?
[2022-04-12 15:23:01] - paul: I think the problem is Reich is strawmanning what “open” internet means and attacking what he thinks it is. - mig
[2022-04-12 15:14:22] - paul: we’ve transitioned from “everyone i don’t like is hitler” to “everyone i don’t like is putin” - mig
[2022-04-12 14:46:33] - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/12/elon-musk-internet-twitter I really try hard to understand arguments from people who I don't agree with, but this one I just can't grok. An uncontrolled internet is the dream of dictators? Musk = Putin? What? -Paul
[2022-04-12 13:46:12] - 10% month to month would make the annual inflation 18% and -10% month-to-month would make the annual inflation -4%. yeah, that makes more sense. ~a
[2022-04-12 13:45:09] - hmm. that's not right, never mind. i think i annualized the numbers? ~a
[2022-04-12 13:42:39] - paul: yes the month-to-month number is the only number we didn't know, but that one month change is 1/12th of the total yearly number. if it had been something crazy like 10% month-to-month, our yearly inflation would be (only) 9.3%. or if it had gone cray in the other direction, -10%, 7.4% would be our yearly inflation. ~a
[2022-04-12 13:33:47] - a: Sure, that makes sense. In a vacuum, that year over year number gives us a better holistic view, but we already knew 11 months of out the last 12 for that year over year number. The "new" information is basically that month to month number, right? -Paul
[2022-04-12 13:30:08] - paul: the 1.2% month to month is not way more relevant, imo. the reason is that a single month can have some volatility. you can't draw big conclusions along short term volatile points. a whole year has a harder time being *just* volatility. iow, a single year is almost always a more relevant time period than a single month. maaaybe if you had another time period in between a month and a year (quarter?) then that might make sense. ~a
[2022-04-12 13:08:18] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/11/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html 8.5% is getting all the headlines, but isn't the 1.2% month-to-month way more relevant? Assuming inflation mostly goes up, then that 8.5% has a lot of previous inflation already baked into it. -Paul
[2022-04-12 13:07:21] - a: "today's generation of debtors living in a border-line dystopian nightmare" You think mostly from student loan debt? That's the clear increase I think anybody would agree with, but I also think the political winds are definitely trending in a "forgive lots of student loan debt" direction. -paul
[2022-04-12 13:05:32] - a: Re: bitcoin, I agree. People look at the short term movements and freak out / gloat when the long term trend is pretty clear. I still think it's interesting, though. -Paul
[2022-04-12 13:04:41] - a: Good lord, I don't even remember knowing about that before yesterday, let alone posting it here. That's scary. -Paul
[2022-04-12 01:08:08] - a: life expectancy worse? I could believe it. That we're living in a border-line dystopian nightmare? That seems outlandish to me. - mig
[2022-04-11 20:54:14] - mig: ah i found it. i figured it was one of my links
it was behind a paywall, oops. ~a[2022-04-11 20:50:41] - paul: in stock market news, i'm a bit surprised and dismayed by bonds in 2022. the stock market went down 9% and the bond market went down 9% at the same time. it's so weird. ~a
[2022-04-11 20:44:11] - mig: what are you quoting? i looked at each of the links and couldn't find it. regardless, i'm sure there are studies or some data supporting it, so i guess we agree! one dimension is life expectancy: millennials definitely lose out there (only predicted). do you agree? we americans are fucked in my opinion: boomers had things pretty hard, but not like today's generation of debtors living in a border-line dystopian nightmare. ~a
[2022-04-11 20:33:19] - paul: yes, i heard about it from (checks notes) someone named paaawel? ~a
[2022-04-11 20:31:14] - flounder . . . ~a
[2022-04-11 20:30:28] - paul: "bitcoin continues to flounder". christ, have some perspective, man. the usd has had apx 5% annualized inflation the last few years, and bitcoin has had apx -58% annualized inflation the last few years. ~a
[2022-04-11 20:24:11] - https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ Have you all heard of Dall-E? Super cool. -Paul
[2022-04-11 20:06:57] - daniel: by "pure capitalism" are we talking anarchocapitalism or something else? - mig
[2022-04-11 20:05:12] - “Millennials are the first generation of US Americans to have life prospects worse than their parents,” I'm sure there are studies or some data supporting this, but I can't see how this can possibly be true. - mig
[2022-04-11 20:01:38] - Daniel: I think most things work better with more capitalism versus less, and I think our current society should be far more skewed towards capitalism (most of the worst segments of our society are the ones that are least free market, IMHO). I don't think that's much of a surprise, though.
-Paul[2022-04-11 19:58:43] - Interesting that bitcoin continues to flounder despite the inflation, though. -Paul
[2022-04-11 19:43:36] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/11/inflation-data-white-house-expects-big-price-hikes-in-march-cpi-report.html iBonds looking tastier and tastier. -Paul
[2022-04-11 19:05:53] - I think pure capatalism is bad but pure communism would be bad too. But I think a mix of things is probably the way to go. We already have socialized medicine to some degree just a stupid way so that seems an obvious improvement. Utilities are already often publicly run /shrug. I don't think cell phone companies should be socialized / communized (?) but I don't think capatilism works in all arenas. - Daniel
[2022-04-11 18:58:55] - a: I mostly tend to the former, but I fully admit there are plenty of flaws too. -Paul
[2022-04-11 18:57:37] - a: I vacillate a lot. Some days I think capitalism and the free market are an awesomely great thing... and other days I think it's like democracy: the least bad out of a number of crappy options. -Paul
[2022-04-11 18:56:17] - a: Yeah, and I imagine something like 95% of Americans probably disapprove of fascism / authoritarianism / etc. I do wonder how much of that is not differentiating between communism and socialism, though. -Paul
[2022-04-11 18:55:28] - lots of opinions of capitalism among various groups. i definitely have a neutral view of capitalism, i don't consider it a godsend. but, i also don't think we'd do well under communism. socialism . . . probably needs a solid definition before i'd endorse it. ~a
[2022-04-11 18:50:16] - behind a paywall, but the title sums up your sentiment. there's also this link, though that's just a poll-of-one. ~a
[2022-04-11 18:14:43] - a: I'm curious what percentage of Americans would agree with a statement like, "Communism is a (failed? less than ideal?) governmental system". -Paul
[2022-04-11 18:13:37] - a: Surprisingly no. I've just had a few conversations over the years where I offhandedly kind of refer to communism in a similar way to how others might refer to fascism / authoritarianism (ie, clearly not a desirable outcome) where it becomes apparent after the fact that the other person didn't have the same... bias? -Paul
[2022-04-11 17:50:40] - . . . i kinda figured that's where paul was going with this? ~a
[2022-04-11 17:44:30] - paul: I'd argue socialism is heading towards that way too. - mig
[2022-04-11 15:28:33] - a: That makes sense. I think I tend to lump "communism" more with "fascism" in the "it's inherently bad", but a not insignificant amount of that is because I think it's mostly unworkable and devolves into bad things, as you say. -Paul
[2022-04-11 15:15:50] - hmmm, i'm not sure if it's unrelated. i just have a hard time imagining it working well in the aggregate? ~a
[2022-04-11 14:01:51] - a: Fair to say it's not inherently bad, just that it often might lead to (somewhat unrelated) bad outcomes? -Paul
[2022-04-10 20:07:59] - paul: "not quite at the level of 'fascism' or 'dictatorship'". i think the reason it won't work for medium or large countries is because it'll fall into fascism or malevolent dictatorship quickly. ~a
[2022-04-10 10:19:46] - a: So... more nuanced than Mig? And not quite at the level of "fascism" or "dictatorship"? It's not like a Godwin's law kind of thing that bringing up communism as some end state automatically ends the argument? -Paul
[2022-04-09 03:09:08] - paul: i think in small communities (less than, say, 100 people) it could work pretty well. once you get over, say, 1000 people i think it requires too much trust in the government to function without instability. for large governments, i'd say it's always bad. ~a
[2022-04-09 01:26:09] - paul: I think the bad actors in China and the former Soviet Union make it impossible to have nuanced views on communism. - mig
[2022-04-08 23:10:19] - I'm curious if people here would say that "communism" is something that is safe to assume is almost always bad (in the same way as "fascism" or "authoritarianism" or "dictatorship") or if they think it's more nuanced (or even the opposite: almost always good). -Paul
[2022-04-08 22:37:24] - mig: Yeah. I honestly couldn't see anything objectionable about KBJ that goes beyond ideological disagreements or partisan games. I know we had plenty of evidence before that this is what SCOTUS votes had become, but I thought maybe we could start taking a tiny step beyond that post-Trump. -Paul
[2022-04-08 12:03:24] - oops meant to paul: -mig
[2022-04-08 12:02:06] - a: expect partyline votes in the future aside from the non demagouges (murkowski, romney, collins, manchin) -mig
[2022-04-07 19:34:38] - Looks like I was 7 votes short of my prediction that KBJ would get 60 votes. I guess we're pretty doomed to SCOTUS votes pretty close to party lines in the near future. -Paul
[2022-04-07 17:15:08] - a: Not sure I could come up with just one, but I'll forever love Root in Dodgeball ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epvmNF-uaus ). -Paul
[2022-04-07 15:05:03] - also his voice (Bill Dauterive on king of the hill) is very recognizable even when he's trying to mask it. ~a
[2022-04-07 15:02:32] - daniel: from your link: "The transformation is so complete that one might find themselves repeating, Wait, is that Stephen Root?" i say this a lot. or more often i just say the shorted version: "stephen root!" ~a
[2022-04-07 05:23:31] - a: Going from https://www.vulture.com/article/best-character-actors.html - I would go with Lance Reddick (bonus points for being in Horizon Zero Dawn games) or Benedict Wong. -Daniel
[2022-04-06 20:07:56] - who's your favorite supporting actor? mine is stephen root. i say he's underrated, but i guess most supporting actors are probably underrated. he's prolific and versatile. his voice-acting is also almost as legendary as his . . . regular . . . acting? ~a
[2022-04-06 14:24:49] - I think they were worried about him just buying up an outright majority and dissolving the board or something like that. Thats what i read anyways not sure how much of that is grounded in reality. - mig
[2022-04-06 14:23:05] - i’ve read they put him on the board as actually a defensive measure. Board members are supposedly capped at owning no more than 14.9% of the company. - mig
[2022-04-06 01:08:02] - a: Sure. I mean, he already got named to the board and is making veiled promises on twitter. Seems like a pretty active "passive" stake. -Paul
[2022-04-05 16:44:02] - "a dog waiting for its owner to wake up in bucha, ukraine." i can't link this image, sorry. it makes me too sad. google it if you really need to see it. but i warn you, it is exactly what you think it is. ~a
[2022-04-05 16:42:57] - a: Yeah sub reddits don't always start with the best name (anti-work springs to mind). -Daniel
[2022-04-05 16:36:24] - daniel: and all of the other nuance in fuckcars: "we don't want to isolate rural communities by taking away cars", "we don't want to disrupt work trucks and delivery vehicles", some/most of them are pro-bus and pro-personal-vans, and carpooling, and slugging, etc. most of them aren't mad at car users, but the decision makes that decide that it is the only choice allowed. it's just more about having *the option*. ~a
[2022-04-05 16:36:21] - daniel: yah, gotcha. i also wonder if people misunderstand "fuck cars". maybe it's just a bad *name*? for instance, "i'm a car enthusiast and i unironically agree with this sub", "i'm a car enthusiast, and this one of my is my favorite subreddits". ~a
[2022-04-05 16:29:06] - a: its very true in terms of kid's media consumption. Andrea and I are way more conservative in terms of what we let our kids watch than almost all other parents I know. My kids haven't watched any Marvel movies and most other kids Nathan's age (5 / kindergarten) have seen several. Alex was 7 when I let her watch The Last Airbender and that was the most violent thing I think she'd watched at that point. -Daniel
[2022-04-05 15:35:19] - paul: also, similar to the washington post situation with bezos . . . just because he will or won't have a direct affect on the company, doesn't mean that he won't also have an indirect affect on the company? ~a
[2022-04-05 15:25:45] - paul: i didn't realize it was passive. that is too weird. i wonder if he can change his mind on that later? ~a
[2022-04-05 14:37:30] - daniel: i know your kids are probably too young to fall into this weird part of our society: that somehow we think violence is appropriate in our media and national-dialog, but naughty words are inappropriate. so: i'm not really making a "real" point. regardless, it's what i was noodling on after our conversation. ~a
[2022-04-05 14:37:27] - daniel: i thought a lot about fuck ears last night. it's weird because car deaths and gun deaths are approximately equal, in our country. and both are, on their own, greater than flu deaths. it reminded me of the movie from the 90s: south park, bigger longer, uncut. and the thesis of the movie was that it was (satirically) ok to be insanely violent as long as you didn't say any naughty words. (and the v-chip was new). ~a
[2022-04-05 01:06:04] - a: I was pretty surprised by the move. Especially that it is a "passive" stake. -Paul
[2022-04-05 01:04:50] - a: What a week to be on vacation and thus not able to talk about Musk and Twitter on the message board much, huh?
-Paul[2022-04-04 20:13:12] - a: Tonight it is then. Miguel / Aaron you guys are welcome to join if you like : ) We can play wacky SC2 shenanigan games if that is more appealing
We've tried Direct Strike, SC2 Poker, Micro Wars, Limited budget FFAs and other wacky things. Just don't want to be exclusionary! -Daniel[2022-04-04 20:07:42] - daniel: m,t,w please. thanks! ~a
[2022-04-04 20:07:10] - a: SC2 all up to you this week it looks like! -Daniel
[2022-04-04 18:25:24] - "just asking questions" seems to be a Tucker meme. - mig
[2022-04-04 18:23:42] - a: there's a cadre of righties (including tucker) who are weirdly try to find ways to excuse some of the bad things Putin does. I dunno if this some weird Trump loyalty thing, or just some of the odd authoritarian bromance that the extremes on each side seem to fall into. Walsh is just meme-ing on what Tucker might say on his show tonight. - mig
[2022-04-04 18:04:37] - https://i.redd.it/xdno56gvkir81.jpg . . . for a while i thought this might be an actual quote. do you know what the background is here? i assume it's that tucker carlson is a sycophant, but i'm not sure i follow the specifics. ~a
[2022-04-04 17:56:56] - i wonder how hard it would be for me to sell my shares directly to paul. i'm like 90% sure you can ask your broker for the paper version of your shares. but then . . . changing the owner is probably a whole other weird process. ~a
[2022-04-04 17:56:14] - mig: my . . . 9 puny shares laughs at your warning. i'm set to make a whole $100 today
~a[2022-04-04 17:47:08] - a: pick your timing carefully. - mig
[2022-04-04 17:34:15] - mig: "I think I can fix Twitter" i feel like at this point i know musk pretty well. if he thinks he can "fix" twitter, it'll be towards a system that i'm less happy with than the status quo. any serious changes he makes to twitter will make me want to own twtr less and make paul want to own twtr more
maybe i can sell my shares directly to paul. ~a[2022-04-04 17:30:03] - mig: definitely some solid cherrypicking here, so i went in search of some (not so serious) actual info. it does seem like bezos has been hands-off editorially, but he did make some sweeping changes to the newspaper. i don't think any of those changes were so that things would be more friendly to his business, but i think that happened anyways. ~a
[2022-04-04 17:28:57] - I think this might be more a Musk adventure where he goes, "I think I can fix Twitter" more than anything else. - mig
[2022-04-04 17:27:00] - I could buy that line about Bezos and WaPo because as a person he's not really "out there". Musk's not really the same. - mig
[2022-04-04 17:20:01] - musk already has enough of a mouth piece? He doesn't need to buy twitter to have a huge megaphone. - mig
[2022-04-04 17:19:13] - a: I dunno. I feel like the post has always been this way? It doesn't help their only kind of conservative writer basically switched ideologies (nothing to do with the Bezos though). - mig
[2022-04-04 17:13:03] - mig: do you feel this way based on feelings you had before the bezos purchase (2013) or after it? "just so he could have some like minded friends post op eds" i absolutely think this is what has happened, but it may/could be a more subtle instance of self-censoring or internal changes that happened indirectly related to the sale. ~a
[2022-04-04 17:10:47] - a: I dunno if that's true? The post's cast of writers all seem to be either hard or center left? Admittedly I don't pay too much attention to opinion section, but I kind of doubt bezo bought the post just so he could have some like minded friends post op eds. - mig
[2022-04-04 16:09:26] - i think musk wants a mouthpiece. as we might (?) all agree, the washingtonpost's opinion sections have changed focus to be slightly more anti-labor and anti-taxes-for-the-wealthy. ~a
[2022-04-04 16:08:16] - daniel: poop. ok, the title is "elon musk becomes twitter’s largest shareholder" and the article is about three sentences, and here is one of them: "per bloomberg data, musk’s 9.2 per cent twitter stake would make him the largest shareholder in the company. notably it’s more than quadruple the 2.25 per cent position of founder jack dorsey". ~a
[2022-04-04 16:06:08] - a: Paywall
-Daniel[2022-04-04 16:01:45] - paul: this feels like when bezos bought up the washington post. like, he wants his message to get out to the people, just like bezos does. and he has a lot of money, just like bezos does. and he thinks (knows) he can use money to reach that goal. he owns more than 4x as much as jack, that's too weird. ~a
[2022-04-01 20:41:46] - "I was hoping to just have to deal with a single column" delimiters. use "+" to mean archon, "," to mean on the same team, and " vs " to mean the other team? totally glad i could "help"
honestly if it were me i'd create columns. columns are free, and you have infinity of them. ~a[2022-04-01 20:23:15] - a: Yeah, I can, but I was hoping to just have to deal with a single column. Also, I messed up my notation from earlier and can't tell if something like "Daniel/Dewey" means they were both my teammate.... or were an archon team that was my teammate. -Paul
[2022-04-01 20:18:38] - why? can't you just list your teammates in alphabetical order? ~a
[2022-04-01 15:32:40] - 3v3 games are a little trickier. I haven't figured out an ideal way to track teammates there and have been inconsistent. -Paul
[2022-04-01 15:32:07] - Daniel: Since I started keeping track, we haven't played archon as Terran, but I am 2-0 with you as my teammate in 2v2 games when I am Terran. -Paul
[2022-04-01 15:15:56] - Paul: We have a winning record as archon and Terran? I find that hard to believe somehow. I feel like I lose all games as Terran. -Daniel
[2022-04-01 13:38:04] - If I exclude games where I was on the same team as Daniel, then I have a losing record with Protoss and Terran and a 50/50 record with Zerg. -Paul
[2022-04-01 13:37:18] - I did some checking of my SC2 games. I have a winning record as Terran and Zerg (losing record as Protoss). In games where I am on the same team as Daniel (teammate or archon), I have a winning record with all races. -Paul
[2022-04-01 10:35:26] - a: Ah, okay. I just skimmed the first part and didn't see the magic words. -Paul
[2022-04-01 03:14:15] - yep i think so. "patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group receiving oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg...) plus standard of care or the control group receiving the standard of care alone (figure). the randomization was based on an investigator-blinded randomization list uploaded to redcap" ~a
[2022-04-01 03:08:44] - a: Was that double blind? Agreed there was earlier evidence as well. -Paul
[2022-03-31 23:41:30] - we already had our definitive answer? i even posted it here. link (posted here 1.5 months ago) ~a
[2022-03-31 23:37:52] - . . . ~a
[2022-03-31 22:59:20] - https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/largest-trial-to-date-finds-ivermectin-is-worthless-against-covid/ Sounds like we have a pretty definitive answer: "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial" -Paul
[2022-03-31 21:00:21] - a: oh i agree, it'll take a lot for people to turn on putin, but he seems to be trying his hardest to push his subjects and staff in that direction. - mig
[2022-03-31 19:47:25] - a: I believe you, but I'm also surprised. Seems like dictators usually have quite the downfall when they are deposed. I guess we'll see. I know little about internal Russian politics, but it seems like it's going to be hard to spin this as anything other than a complete disaster. -Paul
[2022-03-31 19:03:42] - russia is a democracy. i mean jk obviously. but i think dictators do occasionally give up their power or are overthrown without losing their wealth/lives. i googled it a bunch, and found a bunch of lists of people i'd never heard of doing this. still, any of you might be right. i guess we'll see. ~a
[2022-03-31 18:55:17] - a: And dictators tend to do fine even when their country goes to hell.... as long as they can stay in power. -Paul
[2022-03-31 18:54:55] - a: Didn't I bring up the idea at the start that Putin just might be losing it and have made a terrible blunder? By all accounts this has been a pretty epic disaster. It's interesting you say "rich people always land on their feet" referring to Putin. Sure, he's rich, but I think the more appropriate character trait is that he's a dictator. -Paul
[2022-03-31 18:09:52] - mig: I'm not sure about firing squad but if it continues to go terribly I could see Putin falling out a window or something. I don't know who would take that initiative or be in charge after though. -Daniel
[2022-03-31 18:02:11] - a: i dunno i can see this eventually putting putin in front of a firing squad. - mig
[2022-03-31 17:23:52] - for the first time, like literally today, i'm starting to think that russia is fucked. putin will do fine, because rich people always land on their feet. but russia on the other hand, is fucked. ~a
[2022-03-31 17:22:16] - who do we think is going to blink first? some things people online noted that i find interesting: 1. didn't he already do this? i think europe has already called his bluff? 2. it's coming into summer, so in the short-term this will be an easy threat to ignore. 3. was the whole point of invading ukraine to get this gas? ~a
[2022-03-30 16:03:43] - he's also probably the person who has the most bias. "most other people didn't think we would be close to where we are now" this is 100% fair. i'm paradoxically both surprised where we are, and saddened by how dangerous+reckless+deadly the fsd seems. ~a
[2022-03-30 16:02:15] - a: Fair enough about Musk and lying, but at the same time, he's probably the person who has the most informed opinion on where we are in terms of self-driving. Optimistic still? Absolutely. But most other people didn't think we would be close to where we are now. -Paul
[2022-03-30 14:45:11] - also, for what it's worth, i don't believe a word out of musk's mouth. he's openly lied one time too many. ~a
[2022-03-30 14:42:35] - paul: "Secondly, you don't think we're pretty close to level 4?" if you use the original definitions i think we're close to level 3. they renumbered everything ~6 years ago (right after our bet), so if you see musk talking about level 4 today, he might be talking about something different than our bet. ~a
[2022-03-30 14:41:01] - a: https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-likely-to-achieve-level-4-autonomy-in-2022-says-elon-musk Musk is often early on these things, but 3 years early is a bit much, even for him. -Paul
[2022-03-30 14:40:28] - a: I think we still disagree on where the technology is. For starters, there's still 3 years left for improvement, which is a ton of time. Secondly, you don't think we're pretty close to level 4? Waymo has driverless cars (albeit not for sale and for very specific use cases) and Musk as recently as last year still thought Tesla would get there in 2022. -Paul
[2022-03-30 14:11:46] - another random thought: if i end up losing the bet, i'll end up making my money back in the investment (unless i sell) ~a
[2022-03-30 14:08:58] - wow i completely forgot about the arkk bet. for what it's worth, i've lost far more money investing in arkk than i'll win in that bet
~a[2022-03-30 14:06:45] - paul: "it could include unoccupied cars". no way. (link to old text) tesla might reach what was level 3. but even then only maybe! i think even with inflation removed, tesla fsd will never be below 20k. ~a
[2022-03-30 14:04:31] - paul: yeah, (now!) i'm pretty sure you're going to lose too. i'm not sure it's 100% inflation though. if you wanna add inflation in to make it more interesting, i'm very fine with that. the technology won't be there. level 4 originally specified "The vehicle performs all safety-critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time". tesla's fsd isn't even attempting to be this. ~a
[2022-03-30 11:34:59] - a: Regardless of where the technology ends up, I think I am going to lose our self driving car bet based solely on the price restrictions alone. Foolishly hadn't counted on inflation. Instead of going down, the cost of EVs have been going up! -Paul
[2022-03-30 11:33:44] - a: I almost posted an article showing Biden (and Harris) would currently lose in a hypothetical match-up with Trump as of right now with the commentary: "Are we ready to re-hash 2020 with two old candidates who are even older!?" -Paul
[2022-03-29 20:50:30] - what year is it??? ~a
[2022-03-29 17:20:05] - also if you google that quote, newsweek is the only website that has it this way. every other search result says "for" ~a
[2022-03-29 17:15:24] - you're right of course. i was prompted to use "for" though, because the first sentence in the article literally has "threat for existence". the article, btw still has the typo in there like an hour later . . . the website says the article was posted 9 hours ago. ~a
[2022-03-29 17:12:04] - a: Could also be "of"? Or "to" (although that would be way off). Agreed that when you are dealing with the concept of nuclear war.... typos and words become super important. -Paul
[2022-03-29 16:48:22] - feels a bit weird seeing a typo that completely changes the meaning of a sentence when literally discussing nuclear war. ~a
[2022-03-29 16:47:39] - i found this quote in a newsweek article: "we can use and we will actually use nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat or the existence of our country." do you guys think this is a typo? based on language i saw elsewhere in the article, i have a feeling like "or" should be "for". but if you don't change anything about the sentence it feels a bit like russia wants to use nukes to eliminate their own country? ~a
[2022-03-28 19:34:20] - a: I almost asked if people were team Rock or team Smith.
-Paul[2022-03-28 19:16:16] - in somewhat relevant news i just learned two seconds ago . . . (i'm impressed we got through 3/4ths of the day without discussing this actually). neither will smith nor chris rock are billionaires. neither of them are even close. in fact, only one of them is over 100m in net worth. just a bit of context of how rich and out of touch you really have to be to have 1b.
~a[2022-03-28 19:08:31] - paul: yah. i don't think it makes sense to suggest (imply / hint) that this is mostly hitting people who are at most 1/10th of a billionaire, when it's hitting *households* that are at least 1/10th of a billionaire (plus a dollar, with the irs pennies are often truncated, i think). i know what you meant though. ~a
[2022-03-28 19:05:04] - a: But, yeah, you're right that if it was a one person household with exactly $100m net worth, the tax probably wouldn't apply? -Paul
[2022-03-28 19:04:27] - a: I'm getting a little turned around (especially since I apparently accidentally used a double negative: "A household with $100m in net worth isn't not a billionaire"). I said "at most" because I was referring specifically to that $100m net worth household and was thinking of multiple members of the household. -Paul
[2022-03-28 18:51:43] - paul: you are very right. i got triggered by "at most", when literally the bill is about "at least". ~a
[2022-03-28 18:06:20] - a: Your quibble is over a penny. Mine is over $900m.
-Paul[2022-03-28 18:05:32] - a: "what is the unit of measure?" Ooooh! I have a good clever answer: a Trump. I would say calling this tax a billionaire tax is roughly 3.14 kiloTrumps. -Paul
[2022-03-28 17:58:15] - paul: now i'm the one quibbling, but a household with $100m in net worth isn't affected by this bill. you have to have more than 100m. it was the "at most" text that triggered me, if you're wondering. ~a
[2022-03-28 17:55:43] - paul: "equally dishonest". what is the unit of measure?
~a[2022-03-28 16:21:42] - I guess 100m people don't have a simple name like millionaire / billionaire. 100m-aire. I agree with paul that its dishonest in a dumb way. I agree with Adrian that probably not in a way that people will actually care about. -Daniel
[2022-03-28 16:14:21] - a: "families who make 100k a year don't have the same RATIO of disposable income" Sure, I get that, which is why I didn't just want to reduce everything by a factor of 1000 and tried to get creative. One tax might be more defensible, but I think both are pretty equally dishonest. A household with $100m in net worth isn't not a billionaire. At most, the members of the household combined are 1/10th a billionaire. -Paul
[2022-03-28 16:09:38] - yeah, i guess i see your point. but i'm still not sure i agree with your logic. 100m is to 1b not as 100k is to 1m (apparently the SATs removed the analogy section). they're just not the same. families who make 100k a year don't have the same RATIO of disposable income. ~a
[2022-03-28 15:59:33] - uuuh, hmm. i'd have to think about it. ~a
[2022-03-28 15:59:24] - i definitely misread your "k" as an "m". oops. ~a
[2022-03-28 15:59:12] - oh haha, i messed up. ~a
[2022-03-28 15:58:22] - yes i'm serious. that everybody would be fine with that naming? if you had called it a millionaire tax, and that it applied to only some millionaires, everybody would be fine with that name. ~a
[2022-03-28 15:57:38] - a: Wait, are you serious? What am I missing? -Paul
[2022-03-28 14:37:37] - uuuuh, everybody would be fine with that naming. ~a
[2022-03-28 14:36:41] - a: I dunno, I think my example was equally as dishonest. How about a "millionaire tax" which affects anybody with a net worth of $100k or more? -Paul
[2022-03-28 14:12:10] - a: But I kind of agree about your point about TurboTax and not realizing until I am doing taxes and realize I own thousands more than I expected. -Paul
[2022-03-28 14:11:36] - a: Ah, see, I think this is worse than Patriot Act or Affordable Care Act. Those words feel like meaningless words that get tossed around all the time in politics. There is no set definition of a patriot or "affordable". But "billionaire" has a very specific definition, and a household that has $100 million in wealth does not in any way fit that definition. -Paul\
[2022-03-28 13:35:37] - your musk example is dumb too. you can't change how dishonest a name is to prove a point about dishonesty in naming
~a[2022-03-28 13:32:38] - paul: link to niit if you haven't been bit by it yet. ~a
[2022-03-28 13:32:01] - paul: if "your household made $100 million, would you expect it to affect you?" it's HAD 100 million, not MADE 100 million. but yes, probably.
i don't have 100m, and i already would check (have checked?) whether it applies to me. also, turbotax telling me i owe money is usually when i find out about these bills anyways. niit (lol, litearlly the ACA) has been a huge pain in my side, but i never knew about it until i owed money. ~a[2022-03-28 13:28:06] - is it dishonest? hmmm. yes. i guess i agree that it's dishonest. but like, only minorly so? it's less dishonest than (like you suggested earlier) the patriot act or the earn it act. or, hell, the affordable care act. ~a
[2022-03-28 13:18:36] - a: "part of me wonders if this (complicated) proposal isn't a play to get people to accept other stuff that they wouldn't otherwise" Oh, I'm like 99% certain that's the case. They saw the pushback about taxing wealth and are trying to downplay that as much as possible and framing it so it only affect the "super rich" -Paul
[2022-03-28 13:17:41] - a: A quibble? I suppose. Can it both be a quibble and a really dishonest framing device? I mean, if all you knew was that it was called a "billionaire tax" and your household made $100 million, would you expect it to affect you? Could I call something the "Elon Musk tax" that taxes 50% of wealth of Musk and anybody named Paul because most of the revenue comes from Musk?
-Paul[2022-03-28 13:13:33] - paul: part of me wonders if this (complicated) proposal isn't a play to get people to accept other stuff that they wouldn't otherwise. like . . . what are the chances that this actually passes? somewhere near zero? ~a
[2022-03-28 13:12:29] - huh. ~a
[2022-03-28 13:12:05] - a: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/biden-to-propose-20-tax-aimed-at-billionaires-unrealized-gains I don't think it's just a tax on income. It's a tax on unrealized gains as well. -Paul
[2022-03-28 13:11:47] - paul: yeah, i realized this (later). still seems like a quibble though, sorry. a majority of the revenue will (maybe?) come from billionaires. the revenue that comes from non-billionaires will have over 100m in assets. so . . . shrug? ~a
[2022-03-28 13:10:09] - a: "it said mostly in your article" Where? I just reread it again and don't see mention of how the majority of people affected would be billionaires. Just because the majority of revenue comes from billionaires, it doesn't mean that most of the people affected will be billionaires by virtue of 20% of a billion > 20% of less than a billion. -Paul
[2022-03-28 12:45:05] - lol, my favorite part is that his grandfather won a "slow bicycle race". a race where the goal was to literally bike slowly. ~a
[2022-03-28 12:40:16] - "gotham has batman, metropolis has superman, new york has spider-man, washington dc has bike man" bike man ~a
[2022-03-28 12:06:27] - i'm on your side. a wealth tax is dumb. but (regarding my disagreements with daniel) this bill is much less dumb than all of the other previous wealth-bills and proposals before it, because instead of literally taxing wealth, they decided to tax income if your wealth is above a threshold. so, hiding wealth now is strictly less beneficial (it now only benefits people near the threshold). still bad, imo. but, less bad. ~a
[2022-03-28 11:01:55] - paul: "or at least mostly" it said mostly in your article. "the vast majority of people impacted by this tax will be less than billionaires". Vast? Why vast? Your article called it a minority, which is neither vast nor a majority. So how did you get to vast? Such a quibble too because a *vast* majority of the revenue will come from billionaires and people who are almost billionaires. ~a
[2022-03-28 02:30:37] - a: Because when something is specifically billed a "billionaire tax", I would expect it to exclusively (or at least mostly) target billionaires? Going by revenue raised is a misleading way to measure who it impacts. I'm guessing the vast majority of people impacted by this tax will be less than billionaires. -Paul
[2022-03-28 01:21:41] - ok I'll bite. how is it misnamed? is it because less than half of the revenue targets households with more than 100m and less than 1b in assets? seems like a weird quibble, and I'm on your side on this one. ~a
[2022-03-27 20:34:11] - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/26/president-joe-biden-to-propose-new-20percent-minimum-billionaire-tax-.html I know laws are often named completely inaccurately (Patriot Act?), but this seems really stretching it. -Paul
[2022-03-25 18:12:33] - yah i hate email, but i did see that this morning, thanks! ~a
[2022-03-25 18:11:56] - a: Not sure if you check your email often, but you have an invite. -Paul
[2022-03-24 18:00:49] - paul: i rewatched that movie fairly recently. i think it was since the pandemic, but i'm not positive. if you search the message board, we actually did discuss that movie (i brought it up), and we didn't talk about the virus at all. (worries about fascisim will never go away, though, so i'm not sure if that parallel will ever be surprising
) ~a[2022-03-24 17:36:22] - yeah, i guess i'm ok with your answer honestly. i agree with pretty much all of the things you said. my knee-jerk take is: ok, bitcoin is not a currency. so? i can still do everything i want to do with it, so i'm happy. i'm neither indifferent nor slightly against those things, yay? call it whatever you want, i guess, but i'm going to just call it a currency? ~a
[2022-03-24 17:33:59] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film) I'm surprised V for Vendetta didn't come up more over the past ~2 years considering some of the parallels (virus that kills hundreds of thousands, worries about fascism, etc). -Paul
[2022-03-24 17:32:44] - I don't think defining currency is a winning argument for either of us though which is mostly why I didn't go down the road I guess. I'm not sure there is a winning argument for either of us. The things that crypto currency is good at I'm either indifferent or slightly against I guess so its upsides don't really sway me. -Daniel
[2022-03-24 17:31:42] - a: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency I don't think its a completely black and white thing. I don't think its a very good currency for most of the things I care about a currency doing? If all you are about is unregulated international transfers I can see how it (kind of) works there though it still assumes an ability to transfer it to a currency you can use locally. -Daniel
[2022-03-24 17:11:39] - paul: "eyes_gif" . . . daniel? please define a currency for us, because every time i see something like this, i *know* you're just going to say "nope, it's still just an asset, because" ~a
[2022-03-24 17:08:41] - i'm like 99% sure pierce showed me sc1 in high school, years and years before i started playing. ~a
[2022-03-24 17:08:06] - yeah, he's played before. back in the day he was better than i was for sure. but, i pinged him a few times. he said something about how he didn't like sc2. but it's probably been ~10 years since i asked . . . it's worth a shot! ~a
[2022-03-24 17:06:13] - a: We should get Pierce playing SC2. -Paul
[2022-03-24 17:06:00] - https://twitter.com/Fxhedgers/status/1507035292338774033 :eyes_gif: -Paul
[2022-03-24 16:28:09] - I remember Primer from long ago. I think I thought it was good but crazy. -Daniel
[2022-03-24 16:22:05] - lol, i guess i watched it on streaming, my bad ~a
[2022-03-24 13:07:14] - i first saw it back when dvd-netflix was the only thing. i watched it with some people. aaron and pierce? ~a
[2022-03-24 13:06:07] - if you want to borrow it, i think i have two dvd copies lying around somewhere. ~a
[2022-03-23 21:16:57] - a: I did not watch primer. It's on my list.
-Paul[2022-03-23 21:16:23] - a: Braid was a lot of fun, even though I did think it tried a little too hard to be "artsy". The time travel aspect was more about puzzle solving than anything particularly mind-bending, but it was neat. -Paul
[2022-03-23 20:45:47] - paul: sell them in the past and buy them in the present! joking, but this just made me wonder why more video games don't involve time travel. i don't know why i never played braid, i had heard such good things. aaron showed me a different time-travel video game that seemed neat. i think i'd like a game that involved buying and selling stocks using time travel. you watched primer, right? ~a
[2022-03-23 20:42:09] - a: Hah. Kind of kicking myself that I didn't listen to myself when I suggested buying Chinese tech companies. -Paul
[2022-03-23 20:31:30] - buy rubles. ~a
[2022-03-23 20:23:12] - a: "i feel like we've had this conversation a bunch" Yes. Every few years (or maybe more often), I freak out about inflation and the collapse of the dollar (blame Ron Paul) and I find gold to be an unsatisfactory answer so I ask the people smarter for me for answers. I keep asking because sometimes you switch up your answer and tell me about iBonds.
-Paul[2022-03-23 20:00:26] - paul: but also just having equities and having a mortgage is probably the right middle-ground play since we can't actually predict the future. if bond rates go up, then buying bonds *AFTER* they go up in rate, would be a good move imo. or buying ibonds today? ~a
[2022-03-23 19:59:01] - paul: "anything else you can think of?" a good hedge for inflation? well from 4 months ago: "paul: what is a good hedge for inflation? i feel like we've had this conversation a bunch and i always bring this one up that you forget: some sort of reverse bond ("write" bonds, or "sell" bonds, write bond options) or more easily: open some mortgages...some etfs will package this up for you with an asset. for instance, upro" ~a
[2022-03-23 19:53:34] - a: I know I'm preaching to the choir a bit, but it seems like this is a good setup for crypto in general and maybe bitcoin in particular. Anything else you can think of? I still think high growth companies look good (especially after the recent brutal pullbacks). Also obviously interested in what anybody else thinks. -Paul
[2022-03-23 19:43:43] - 8% is pretty reasonable. but also 8% is fairly low (higher than the past few years, but also within a standard deviation of the average). ~a
[2022-03-23 19:42:38] - a: "you (often and regularly) overestimate inflation" Maybe fair, but I also fully admitted 22% was ridiculous. I just wanted something "22" themed. I ultimately went with 8% for my bold prediction. -Paul
[2022-03-23 19:41:59] - tesla prices will normalize now that there are like dozens of pih and evs on the market. ~a
[2022-03-23 19:41:13] - and so far we've seen (annualized) ~9% ~a
[2022-03-23 19:41:10] - a: "real estate isn't the best or only hedge against inflation, and i assume you already have a mortgage" Agreed and agreed. Was building up to asking about other ways to protect against inflation. -Paul
[2022-03-23 19:40:33] - Also really wishing I had listened to my gut and been more serious about getting an EV a few months ago. Now used Teslas cost nearly as much as new ones and new ones are unavailable for like 6 months. -Paul
[2022-03-23 19:39:40] - paul: you (often and regularly) overestimate inflation. "what would you all consider a prediction of an inflation rate of 22% in 2022?" was just 3 months ago. ~a
[2022-03-23 19:38:02] - paul: real estate isn't the best or only hedge against inflation, and i assume you already have a mortgage. ~a
[2022-03-23 19:37:23] - Which might mean less demand for the USD and US treasuries and continued inflation, even if the Fed keeps bumping rates. I'm kicking myself because I feel like there were foreseeable opportunities in real estate in terms of low mortgage rates that I didn't take advantage now and that the opportunity might have passed.... -Paul
[2022-03-23 19:35:14] - If the US keeps trying to flex its economic muscle in terms of sanctions on Russia, and with Russia being a major oil exporter... and the complicated geopolitics around China and India and Russia... I wonder if we start seeing more usage of alternative currencies (outside of the USD) for oil and other stuff. -Paul
[2022-03-23 19:33:04] - Curious if people think we're going to keep seeing significant increases in inflation for the next few years or if things will stabilize? Can't remember if I posted it here (I think I did), but I'm really interested in the developments brought about by Ukraine in terms of the division between the US / Western Europe and Russia / China / India. -Paul
[2022-03-23 17:26:15] - mig: I admit 60 might be a stretch, but I think there's enough R's who either don't want to be seen as racist/sexist or might even be won over by some of her confirmation hearing answers. Kagan and Sotomayor both broke 60 and both got 5-9 Republicans on board. -Paul
[2022-03-23 17:10:01] - paul: I’m not sure she breaks 60. > 50 for sure. - mig
[2022-03-23 16:40:31] - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm Confirmation votes have become fairly partisan recently, despite being less so just a few decades ago. Any thoughts on what the vote total will be here? I say she gets 60+ yes votes. -Paul
[2022-03-23 16:35:43] - a: The things I've heard about her on child phonography don't concern me. It sounds like she has questioned the harsh mandatory penalties, which sounds like a reasonable thing to be concerned about, especially if you are concerned about criminal justice reform. -Paul
[2022-03-23 16:34:13] - paul: yeah, i went a different route. i used a normal charity (unicef) and also sent some directly to the government of ukraine (bitcoin). i figure either side could have men-in-the-middle that are corrupt and skimming off the top, but hopefully one side is getting through. ~a
[2022-03-23 16:31:49] - a: Because Airbnb is presumably still taking out their middle-man fees. I know charities have overhead too, but at least they are hopefully doing more to target aid. -Paul
[2022-03-23 16:31:11] - a: 1) No idea. 2) Presumably they are assuming that if the property is in Ukraine, the owners are Ukrainian, but I agree with your implied point. 3) No idea. I honestly thought it was a silly way to go about things. Seems like it would be much better to donate to a charity or something instead. -Paul
[2022-03-23 16:13:56] - a: I am … neutral. - mig
[2022-03-23 16:13:39] - a: I tend to agree. Manchin seems onboard, so any GOP effort to block the nom will be futile. - mig
[2022-03-23 16:10:59] - so you like her?
~a[2022-03-23 16:10:40] - paul: I don’t dislike her. - mig
[2022-03-23 15:38:55] - paul: i heard (from ted cruz probably) that she gave light sentences to child pornographers. and that she's got a bunch of funding from pro-choice groups. that's not going to go well for her, but in the end, imo it looks like she'll be confirmed. ~a
[2022-03-23 15:37:08] - paul: i did hear about that, but didn't read any details on it. i like it, definitely behind this plan. and . . . that it is very round-about. out of pure curiosity (the answers don't really matter), 1. how do you know that airbnb is passing this money to bank accounts in ukraine? 2. how do we know that the owners are ukranian? 3. how do we know they are using this money? ~a
[2022-03-23 13:46:49] - a: Have you heard about people reserving Airbnbs in Ukraine (with no intention of actually going) just to send money to people there? Seems like such an odd roundabout way of sending support. -Paul
[2022-03-23 13:45:26] - We haven't talked much about Biden's nomination of KBJ to SCOTUS. From everything I've heard so far (and I haven't been following it too closely), I'm impressed and think it's about as good a nomination as a libertarian could expect from a democrat. -Paul
[2022-03-22 21:28:58] - daniel: "Just an easier to transfer asset?". how do you define currency? i'd start with an easy to transfer asset, and work from there. ~a
[2022-03-22 21:27:57] - daniel: which is kinda my point. and also ukraine's point. they aren't picking crypto because it's cool. ~a
[2022-03-22 21:02:25] - daniel: "if Ukraine wanted they probably could set up a way to accept GME stocks". here i disagree. if ukraine wanted to do this, they probably could not. ~a
[2022-03-22 17:39:59] - There are probaly smarter people than me who have looked into defining those terms better somewhere, either lawyers or academics I would guess. -Daniel
[2022-03-22 17:39:28] - a: I feel like we debating different fronts or something. I agree crypto is easier to transfer across international borders than gold. Just that if Ukraine wanted they probably could set up a way to accept GME stocks but yeah crypto is easier. I'm not sure that makes it currency though. Just an easier to transfer asset? I guess the distinction is between "currency" and "asset" which I guess comes down to acceptance and ease of use?-Daniel
[2022-03-22 17:12:16] - daniel: "I'm pretty sure stocks / gold do get sold / transferred across international boundaries". it's possible, of course. and it's super difficult. i literally can't buy shares in companies that don't trade on US exchanges. i can't BUY it. let alone TRANSFER it, that's probably harder. actually, fuck, why aren't people donating gold or gme to ukranie? do you think it's not telling at all that people are ONLY using crypto/usd? ~a
[2022-03-22 15:28:32] - Bitcoin has the advantage of not being regulated so its easier to transfer across international borders. So yeah I think we talked about that being an advantage it has before. But I don't think that makes it currency? -Daniel
[2022-03-22 15:27:23] - a: I'm pretty sure stocks / gold do get sold / transferred across international boundaries. I'm not sure I get your point about USD in Europe. Yes currency conversion is a thing. But you wouldn't call GE stock currency and you could also take that to Europe sell it for euro's and buy stuff. -Daniel
[2022-03-22 15:22:31] - daniel: the banking system is complex in a way that bitcoin does alleviate. i guess i don't care if people are converting currency or not? if i pay for something in usd to buy something in europe, and money is translated into euros does that make usd not real currency? obviously not, right? ~a
[2022-03-22 15:20:45] - daniel: what sort of system? if such a system for that could be set up as well, why hasn't it? worded differently, don't you think the evidence that such a thing hasn't been set up is that way for a reason? our congress (not sure if it was the house or the senate) specifically asked ukraine this question: why aren't people donating dollars or euros? and the ukraine official replied that the banking system doesn't allow for that. ~a
prev <-> next