prev <-> next
[2022-06-15 20:59:31] - You aren't only taxed on income though? He didn't say income tax rate just tax rate? I'm all for more clarity in things and part of why twitter sucks for things like this. I think part of that magic phrase is that it implies a way that people are using unrealized gains as a proxy for income in some way that isn't being taxed. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:59:28] - Sorry I dropped my link and then missed most of the resulting conversation. Got distracted with something else. It wasn't intended to be a referendum on taxing unrealized stock gains. I just thought (as Adrian has been saying), that it is super sketchy to not make that clear in the 8% number because I don't think most people assume unrealized stock gains are part of that calculation. -Paul
[2022-06-15 20:57:04] - like . . . their system definitely includes retirement account gains as income.
wth? ~a[2022-06-15 20:55:31] - daniel: we've never considered change in wealth = income. they're . . . like different words. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:53:12] - if you want to use the number 8% you have to say that people are taxed 8% of their change in wealth. you can't say "average tax rate is... About 8%", that's a fucking lie by omission. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:51:54] - Which is why I think the new key phrase is "Like all other forms of income, unrealized capital gains income can be tapped to finance consumption and can improve financial wellbeing." -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:51:21] - If they avoid taxes by taking loans and transferring stock to pay off the loans and it doesn't incur taxes that would seem to make it more legit? I don't actually know though how that works. Again not up on my super rich accounting. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:49:56] - daniel: so to get to $1.82e12 they add their total change in wealth to their state and local taxes paid. yes, they're including unrealized stock gains. i agree with paul now. 8% is a total bullshit number. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:48:42] - Which I think could be true I'd probably want spelled out better for me, but also I'm not sure I want to google / research that currently either. So......... yeah. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:47:52] - It didn't go into why unrealized gains were included other than "Like all other forms of income, unrealized capital gains income can be tapped to finance consumption and can improve financial wellbeing." -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:47:51] - daniel: i found it, thanks! $149e9 / $1.82e12 = 8% ~a
[2022-06-15 20:47:15] - I didn't read it super carefully but trying to do some speed reading my take aways are that yes they are including unrealized gains in determing the 8% number but not suggesting those be taxed. Rather that stepped up basis upon inheritance and low capital gains are places policy could change. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:45:59] - https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/ Thats the actual whole article thing on the white house site. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:37:52] - daniel: that's fair. and for what it's worth i agree with you anyways. the highlighted section could be literally anything. and how we get to 8% is still tbd. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:37:40] - I think someone following up with WH / that study and asking 'what does this mean?' would be a good question though . -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:36:53] - a: I don't think I would assume that no. I don't know what it would mean but I think with weird accounting there are weird possibilties (like the loan shenanigans). -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:36:15] - s/dividends/corporate actions/ ~a
[2022-06-15 20:35:17] - daniel: income from "unsold stock" could only possibly mean dividends or unrealized gains. right? and i'm pretty sure it means both. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:33:38] - The sentence from her screenshot with highlighting is "comprehensive measure of their income that includes income from unsold stock". I'm not sure what that means but it seems like she is assuming it means stock appreciation. Which I'm less sure of. I don't see a screenshot that says 'unrealized stock gains'? -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:30:23] - "loans taken with stock as collateral or something" yeah, some people think this should be taxed. i dunno, i'm definitely on the fence. it's a big loophole for sure if that doesn't get taxed. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:29:12] - daniel: i don't think it's about *taxing* unrealized stock gains, but using unrealized stock gains to determine tax rates. which is dumb if that's what the potus is doing. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:28:44] - daniel: in the next few tweets they highlight "unrealized stock gains" in a document. i'm just not sure how we get from that highlighted section to 8%. we can't know that 8% includes unrealized stock gains. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:28:27] - But yeah I think taxing unrealized stock gains seems like a bad plan given how volatile stuff is. Stock worth X on any given day is almost guaranteed to not be worth X the next day. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:27:20] - I mean reading through it seems like she is assuming its unrealized stock gains? I'm not sure what it is but I've also heard about trying to figure out taxing on loans taken with stock as collateral or something? I'm not up on my mega rich accounting but I think its possible its something other than just unrealized stock gains. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 20:26:36] - paul: no, i don't think that unrealized stock gains should be considered for calculating tax rates. but i also don't know if i trust any of caroljsroth's conclusions or potus's conclusions for that matter. (i did see his highlighted passage, but i also don't know that 8% came from that passage). 8% = what out of what? i need to see two numbers. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:21:29] - https://twitter.com/caroljsroth/status/1537114976246169600 What do you all think? Counting unrealized stock gains for calculating tax rates? Disinformation or no? I know some people have been advocating for this measure, but it seems super sketchy to me since I imagine 99% of people who read that compare it to their own personal income tax rates which don't count unrealized stock gains. -Paul
[2022-06-15 20:15:17] - ok. ~a
[2022-06-15 20:14:10] - a: If the Florida law contained no such exceptions I think it makes a compelling case. But because there is that exception, I think the hurdles are going to be to high. There needs to be a really compelling case that Flordia's exemption isn't enough. - mig
[2022-06-15 15:08:14] - ok, but then the case is anything but DOA, right? they're arguing that their religious freedoms are being infringed. i'm not sure i agree, but it is a novel approach. ~a
[2022-06-15 14:52:14] - a: it is, but these categories seem ... very open to interpretation, and I find it doubtful the courts will step in, particularly if you find theologists advocating for either side. - mig
[2022-06-15 14:50:52] - mig: "mental or physical well-being" seems to be missing from your link. ~a
[2022-06-15 14:49:45] - https://www.npr.org/2022/04/14/1084485963/florida-abortion-law-15-weeks "It does allow an abortion if it would save the life of a pregnant person or prevent serious injury to them". Seems like a DOA strategy? - mig
[2022-06-15 14:46:28] - (here's the wikipedia article on that) ~a
[2022-06-15 14:45:38] - according to some random person on the internet "it’s a long held and established [jewish] belief that the mothers life is supreme and the baby does not exist until it’s born". is this true? ~a
[2022-06-15 14:44:38] - interesting. jewish religious-freedom used in an abortion case (sorry, it's just a tweet) a bold strategy, i'm wondering how far it'll go. ~a
[2022-06-15 14:41:39] - done, thanks! ~a
[2022-06-15 14:23:21] - https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog I would encourage twitter users interested in politics to follow something like SCOTUSblog. It's really interesting to see results for ALL cases (not just the rare ones that make front page news) and how often the decisions are unanimous (or ideologically scrambled. Drives home how the SCOTUS isn't quite as partisan as other aspects of politics -Paul
[2022-06-14 21:35:21] - a: My knee jerk reaction was also that 70% seems wrong. I'm still anchored to bitcoin being like $1k, so >$20k feels high to me. -Paul
[2022-06-14 21:34:20] - a: I'm very leery of red flag laws. I wonder how effective it would be and worry they could be prone to abuse. My immediate thought was an abusive ex could use them to disarm somebody who needs a gun to protect them from the ex. -Paul
[2022-06-14 21:32:07] - https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/ Only about 2/3rds of the way through this article (and have plenty of nitpicks with it), but it's an interesting read so far. I guess it's nice that other political groups are just as wracked with in-fighting as libertarians apparently are.
-Paul[2022-06-14 21:23:53] - NPR just said that bitcoin is down 70% from the peaks. i shook my head and was like "no it isn't". then i did the math (22020/67566-1). wow, ok, i guess i was wrong. feelsbadman. ~a
[2022-06-14 21:11:57] - what do you guys think about red-flag laws? tucker carlson doesn't like them. i'm on the fence. many republicans are turning their backs on the NRA and going *towards* red-flag laws (but maybe because they think it won't change anything?). ~a
[2022-06-14 20:16:31] - fwiw, i also buy a lot of bonds (BND) and money markets (vmrxx). honestly, i only buy vmrxx to remind myself not to put that into anything else. keeping it in cash is basically the same except . . . sometimes i'll forget (!) why its in cash and accidentally spend it on more equities or bonds. ~a
[2022-06-14 20:13:25] - Yeah I wouldn't put my emergency fund in IBonds either. Just if you have some other cash portion of savings it still seems like a reasonable thing to have it in. -Daniel
[2022-06-14 19:59:25] - https://twitter.com/kmanguward/status/1536794021359755267 A real life data point for: "When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything" -Paul
[2022-06-14 19:58:46] - a: Yeah, I mean how long until CDs are returning like 5%+?
-Paul[2022-06-14 19:56:17] - paul: the thing i like about bonds is that they are something you can easily sell to buy equities. otoh, most bonds lose "value" (value, but not always price) when interest rates go up. which is exactly why bonds are hurting today. ~a
[2022-06-14 19:54:17] - mmmm, yeah, sorry, i think having an e-fund is important. i didn't realize that it was on the table. ibonds being part of your e-fund is not something i feel i can comment on. ~a
[2022-06-14 19:53:28] - a: Yeah, I get that, but I guess that's part of my point? Liquidity is also a bit of a sliding scale. iBonds aren't quite as liquid as equities or crypto. Still a lot more liquid than real estate or cars, though. -Paul
[2022-06-14 19:52:27] - a: Sorry, I wasn't suggesting selling my current iBonds. I was just saying the cash (with it's rapidly inflating away value) still has an advantage over iBonds in terms of liquidity. Do I put $10k from my emergency fund into iBonds right now to get maybe ~5% over the next few years and risk a layoff and needing to sell it for no gain? Maybe. -Paul
[2022-06-14 19:51:39] - paul: nah, sorry. i was referring to liquid-portfolio. which doesn't include houses or cars (EXCEPT ones that you plan on selling for your liquid portfolio). ~a
[2022-06-14 19:50:31] - a: It's a little inaccurate to say 100% equities and crypto. I mean, I have real estate (actually a huge percentage right now) and cash and a little bit of iBonds now. Also, a fairly significant value tied up in cars, which I am sure thrills you.
-Paul[2022-06-14 19:50:26] - paul: i wouldn't necessarily sell the 0% today-ibonds to get the non-0% future-ibonds. i'd instead keep buying more, and keep the ones i have. IOW, the 10k/year limit is really low, and i'm not sure selling ibonds before retirement is a thing i'll ever do. ~a
[2022-06-14 19:48:01] - Daniel: I mostly agree, but the one thing cash is better at is liquidity. Companies are starting to do layoffs and lots of people are talking recession. If I recall, you can't sell iBonds within the first few months at all, and then there is the penalty if sold within 5 years, so if I suddenly need the money within the next few months that could be problematic. -Paul
[2022-06-14 19:34:56] - daniel: paul is something like 100% in equities and crypto? and he's like 40? my guess is that any advisor would say, you need something else. ~a
[2022-06-14 19:33:41] - paul: for you, yes especially. but for everyone who isn't in their 20s, who need at least a bit of stable cash, yes. ~a
[2022-06-14 19:32:43] - not Adrian, but I think they are still solid in terms of being part of the 'cash' portion of an overall portfolio. If you have a savings account getting ~1% some of that being in IBonds seems good. I wouldn't say IBonds over stocks for a longer term growth though. -Daniel
[2022-06-14 19:15:42] - a: Would you still think of iBonds as a good investment now? Inflation has been hot, but the Fed seems set on raising rates fast and it's hard to imagine it continues to be going up as much as it has been. With the 3 month penalty when selling within 5 years, and the 0% fixed rate, it seems unlikely iBonds continue to be a good investment going forward. What do you think? -Paul
[2022-06-14 18:23:50] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2017/05/16/venezuelas-melt-down-explained-by-the-oil-curse/?sh=586411a7282b -Paul
[2022-06-14 18:21:25] - paul: there’s obviously other factors but venezuela did put a lot of their economic eggs in the oil basket. - mig
[2022-06-14 18:13:25] - mig: I think Venezuela had more problems than just that, but I think this absolutely didn't help. -Paul
[2022-06-14 18:12:51] - a: Yup. Seems pretty hypocritical. I would say, even a self-professed "free speech" platform should be allowed some content moderation for things like spam bots or illegal content, but this doesn't seem to be the case at all. Seems like just a conservative version of Twitter.
-Paul[2022-06-14 18:01:02] - a: it is difficult to reconcile, especially if “free speech” is your main mission plank. - mig
[2022-06-14 17:59:20] - paul: isn’t that kind of what happened to venezuela? - mig
[2022-06-14 17:18:23] - the self-described free speech platform is anything but. this seems like a dumb move by the platform, right? how can anybody argue now that trump shouldn't have been banned from twitter? this time there were no incitement to imminent violent acts, right? ~a
[2022-06-14 17:11:48] - a: And that's great when oil is high, but horrible when it's low and you have no other industries to help out. -Paul
[2022-06-14 17:11:23] - a: "BUT we'd then expect for energy-deregulated countries to have better currencies in the aggregate. like compounding. do we see that?" No idea, and I also worry there are plenty of other factors that could affect things too. I remember listening to a podcast about how it can actually be a curse to be a country with huge oil reserves because then your economy gets TOO focused on energy. -Paul
[2022-06-14 17:11:13] - have you guy's seen the movie magnolia from the 90s? it's pretty good if you haven't seen it. one of the stars of that movie died yesterday. (he also had bit-parts in the truman show, seinfeld, the west wing, the loop, etc. he's a really good actor) ~a
[2022-06-14 17:07:18] - a: "you don't get a -1% inflation EVERY year, just in the year that you made the change. right?" Sure, but that 1% is still important because of compounding because later percent increases will be less. Also, I would bet no politician is thinking of ways to permanently reduce future inflation. They're all scrambling for panic button fixes to bring things down now. -Paul
[2022-06-14 17:06:21] - paul: i like your link, thank you. ~a
[2022-06-14 17:05:46] - paul: but i also wondered about how energy deregulation would affect climate. ~a
[2022-06-14 17:05:43] - a: https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/even-now-tariffs-are-tiny-portion-us-government-revenue Not very recent, and no idea if reputable, but it confirms my biases.
-Paul[2022-06-14 17:05:31] - paul: oh energy deregulation would potentially compound. i agree there. BUT we'd then expect for energy-deregulated countries to have better currencies in the aggregate. like compounding. do we see that? ~a
[2022-06-14 17:04:00] - a: I'm.... not quite following your questions about energy regulation. I would assume more energy regulation would mean a less robust and efficient economy which would compound over time, but it also seems like just one of many factors. -Paul
[2022-06-14 17:02:36] - paul: "This would be a drop in the bucket" would it? i say no, def not. but like, i dunno man. "it would be permanent decrease to inflation": yes (?) but inflation is yearly. so you'd have say: 7% inflation this year instead of 8%, and then next year it would be what it was GOING to be regardless of your change. you don't get a -1% inflation EVERY year, just in the year that you made the change. right? ~a
[2022-06-14 17:02:34] - a: Would be better than releasing from the strategic petroleum reserves, which one would assume would eventually have to be replenished, or gas tax holidays (which would eventually come back). " is it true? i'm not sure it is." Maybe not in all cases, but I imagine in a decently functioning market it should net result in lower prices in most cases. -Paul
[2022-06-14 17:00:55] - mig: you might need to bring this up on another channel though. travis, and aaron, and pierce, etc won't see this. ~a
[2022-06-14 17:00:38] - a: "you now have a deficit problem" We already have a massive deficit problem nobody seems interested in solving. This would be a drop in the bucket. " would decreasing inflation for ONE year, but then have the inflation go back with the rest of the world, actually help anything?" Assuming the tariffs were permanently removed, it would be permanent decrease to inflation, no? -Paul
[2022-06-14 16:59:44] - mig: i had mcquain freshman year i think. he was a good teacher, but it was a fucking 8:00 class. i should have never taken an 8:00 class, that was so fucking dumb. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:56:28] - paul: and what about the other thing? is there a downside to deregulating energy production? i feel like it's already, today, pretty seriously fucking up our climate. and the united states is "leading" that change (in a bad way). ~a
[2022-06-14 16:55:30] - paul: "removing them should pretty immediately help with higher costs of stuff" three problems come to mind: 1. you now have a deficit problem. 2. would decreasing inflation for ONE year, but then have the inflation go back with the rest of the world, actually help anything? 3. *is* it true? i'm not sure it is. it seems like an oversimplification of how prices are determined. you're assuming profit margins are always static. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:50:55] - paul: ETFs? definitely, yes ETFs do. (probably mutual funds too, for the same reason really, but i don't think i've seen that as often?) ~a
[2022-06-14 16:49:55] - a: Uh, it's less about the timing and more about... I dunno, do funds typically split like that? -Paul
[2022-06-14 16:49:50] - paul: yeah, for splits/dividends/offerings to work well you need to know about adjusted closing price, and yeah, hard-coding opening prices will never work for splits/dividends/offerings. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:48:15] - nah, they split before the drop. so it makes a bunch of sense actually. amzn is the weird split. split after going down almost 1/2?
~a[2022-06-14 16:48:01] - a: I don't know about lower levels of inflation over time that compounds, but considering tariffs pretty much just increase the costs of things imported, removing them should pretty immediately help with higher costs of stuff. -Paul
[2022-06-14 16:47:39] - just had lunch with one of my interns who went to tech. Apparently Prof McQuain retire last semester (not sure who else here had him) - mig
[2022-06-14 16:46:22] - a: ProShares UltraPro S&P500? Weird for them to have a split, right? Anyway, should be fixed. Thanks. Wish Google handled splits better, but I guess there's not an easy way when I hardcode the starting price. -Paul
[2022-06-14 16:44:03] - paul: (about that thing yesterday) do countries with lower tariffs have lower inflation? (less inflation cumulatively, which then adds up in the aggregate?) same question for countries with well-regulated energy? does the difference in inflation just add up over time, so their currencies just beat out foreign currencies in countries with higher-energy-regulations? also, is there any downside to having deregulated energy production? ~a
[2022-06-14 16:43:15] - btw i only find out about these if i hold them irl. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:42:52] - i messaged you about one the other day. upro. 2:1. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:42:16] - a: I missed another stock split, right? UI Path? -Paul
[2022-06-14 16:24:57] - trump embodies "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" ~a
[2022-06-14 16:24:08] - if i had to throw out a guess at a third thing, i'd put money on: illegally pressuring someone who isn't in georgia. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:16:50] - paul: both. and probably a third thing. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:16:30] - a: "he didn't just lie about a stolen election" Referring to incitement? Or the pressuring of GA secretary of state? The former seems really hard to prove and I frankly don't think his actions rise to illegality. The latter.... I don't know what the rules are for that. -Paul
[2022-06-14 16:13:19] - misusing classified material (like putting it on an unclassified computer) is a big no-no in the united states. i'm not 100% sure that's what happened here, but i feel like the rules on this are NOT ambiguous, and *somebody* probably made a bunch of big mistakes. ~a
[2022-06-14 16:04:13] - paul: "Like Hillary and her email server" someone broke the law there, i agree. i don't know if it was hillary or not though. i might surprise you to say, that, yes that should have been prosecuted (i AM suggesting prosecuting clinton, or someone on her team). "That's arguably more illegal than just lying about a stolen election, right?" no. he didn't just lie about a stolen election. you know that, right? ~a
[2022-06-14 16:01:25] - a: "they break the law" Like Hillary and her email server? That's arguably more illegal than just lying about a stolen election, right? I'm sure partisans on both sides will always find some broken law to prosecute losing candidates. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting prosecuting Clinton, just pointing out how I envision your proposal playing out). -Paul
[2022-06-14 15:38:58] - paul: for what it's worth, a referral is just that. you need a g-d judge to allow the case. it's why trump's 2000 cases didn't turn into anything even though trump was in charge of the executive. he didn't have substance behind his actions. so, the (mostly) non-partisan judges were forced (and excited) to do nothing about them. ~a
[2022-06-14 15:28:02] - paul: how about we prosecute the losing candidate every time... they break the law? i'd be down for that. ~a
[2022-06-14 15:26:38] - because "they started it". -Paul
[2022-06-14 15:26:30] - a: I'm ambivalent on prosecuting Trump. Does he deserve it? Maybe. Will it probably just turn into a purely political game of "which party has control of Congress"? Almost certainly. What really concerns me is that if it happens, this will just be one more of the games the two parties play (along with SCOTUS nominations and gerrymandering and filibustering and everything else) where we prosecute the losing candidate every time... -Paul
[2022-06-14 15:12:42] - (and i doubt they will.) ~a
[2022-06-14 15:11:39] - paul: "Which is worse?" one is worse if they're going to refer trump for prosecution. ~a
[2022-06-14 15:06:29] - a: Ah, okay. I think I had heard enough stuff (ie, everybody who worked for him seems to bad mouth Trump once they are out of politics) and rumors (Ivanka told him to stop with the stolen election stuff) that I assumed his inner circle wasn't filled with yes-men (yes-people?) so this doesn't surprise me. Does it matter? Which is worse? Both seem pretty bad. -Paul
[2022-06-14 15:00:43] - Paul: it's all new to me. it confirms what I had suspected. scratch that, no, this is wholly new: I figured most of his inner circle were yes-men. apparently, no, not really, they were not. jared kushner, Ivanka trump, multiple AGs, multiple DAGs, tons of his lawyers, all told him to his face that he couldn't do this. ~a
[2022-06-14 14:55:58] - mig: why do you say that? the title of your article excepting it sounds like that matter is not settled. read the rest of your article? ~a
[2022-06-14 14:06:11] - If there’s no referrals or evidence of a crime, it only vindicates the MAGA cult and probably emboldens them. - mig
[2022-06-14 14:04:34] - I think the main issue for me is are they going to present anything that maybe represents a crime being committed by Trump. If they don’t this whole exercise feels like a waste of time. - mig
[2022-06-14 14:01:27] - Daniel: Are they mutually exclusive?
You are saying this is evidence of the latter instead of the former? That's fair. Do you think he didn't believe what he was saying? Because I kinda still think he did. -Paul[2022-06-14 14:01:15] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22325 no criminal referrals will be coming. - mig
[2022-06-14 13:53:19] - Paul: I think the question is idiot vs malicious actor. -Daniel
[2022-06-14 13:52:36] - a: Because that's pretty much why I don't have any interest in the hearings. I don't expect to learn much beyond what we already know (or I suppose suspect). -Paul
[2022-06-14 13:52:02] - a: Why is it interesting? Isn't that stuff we already knew? That there was basically no reason to think the election was stolen but Trump is an idiot who never thinks he can lose and didn't listen to anybody and decided to talk about all these baseless things anyway? -Paul
[2022-06-13 22:08:05] - "he's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff ... there was no indication of interest in what the actual facts were". bill barr wasn't the only person to tell him that his claims were unfounded: another AG, DAG, counselor to the president, his campaign lawyer, all testified similarly: one literally said "much of the information that you are getting is false" "i told the president [similar things] several times" ~a
[2022-06-13 21:55:55] - "and that they were wasting their time on that and that it was doing a great great diservice to the country." the *very next day*, the president literally claimed on tv that all of these things that his own fucking AG literally told him was "bullshit", "nonsense", and it was all "a great disservice to the country". then barr told him again. it's all very crazy. ~a
[2022-06-13 21:55:49] - "... but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public, that there was this sestemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn't count and that these machines that were controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsens, and it was being layed out there, and i told him that it was crazy stuff" ~a
[2022-06-13 21:55:47] - for those people not watching the hearings today (cough, paul, cough), the bill bar video is pretty interesting to me. everything he says is fairly damning: "there was no indication of fraud ... i told [the president] that the stuff that he was shoveling out to the public was bullshit ... he was indigent about that ... i specifically raised the dominion voting machines ... i saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations ..." ~a
[2022-06-13 16:16:54] - paul/daniel: i like humble. they often make a lot of games available for linux, and in the distant past they allowed payment with bitcoin. ~a
[2022-06-13 16:16:11] - Yeah humble is legit. I've gotten things from there before. -Daniel
[2022-06-13 16:15:30] - Daniel: Not yet, but I thought about giving it a try since it looks on sale here. Humble is legit, right? https://www.humblebundle.com/store/inscryption -Paul
[2022-06-13 16:14:44] - mig: Looks like a paywall. I had heard rumors Obama wasn't overly impressed by Biden, but that's still a strong statement to have on the record. -Paul
[2022-06-13 16:14:40] - Paul: Yeah I think Inscryption is a good game. Did you try it? -Daniel
[2022-06-13 16:14:16] - paul: yes. sorry i misread your post. ~a
[2022-06-13 16:13:41] - a: Meaning it is directly FDR's fault, right? -Paul
[2022-06-13 16:11:12] - paul: I tried to see if that quote is actually real. I got pointed to this article but it's blank oddly. - mig
[2022-06-13 16:10:11] - paul: who's to blame for japanese internment? it was a fucking EO! (9066 if you want to read it) ~a
[2022-06-13 16:08:19] - a: I won't be able to back it up on a definitive level. Economists did warn about inflation, the admin dismissed it and later tried to declare it's transitory or whatever, while it has gotten worse. I can't definitely prove that their inaction made it worse, but circumstantially I don' think it's unreasonable to blame that inaction, in light of there were actions available to at least attempt to deal with the problem. - mig
[2022-06-13 16:02:03] - https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1536357337438511104 Oof, did Obama really say that? -Paul
[2022-06-13 16:01:52] - Daniel: Was Inscryption the game you highly recommended before? -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:57:45] - a: Not trying to answer for Miguel, but there are some things that pretty clearly could've helped with inflation in the short term (removing tariffs) and longer term (lifting regulations on domestic energy production). I personally think the lack of action on the former is bad. More ambivalent on the latter. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:56:06] - Yup, I definitely am on board with a lot of the current stuff that Biden is being blamed for isn't really directly his fault (or not entirely), but that's been the case for forever. It's how we remember Presidents. Biden is awful, but I still don't know how you compare him to say, FDR with Japanese internment or even a George Washington, who was great in so many ways but also a slave-owner. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:54:50] - daniel: i can play every day. thanks! ~a
[2022-06-13 15:54:05] - mig: i agree there was denialism. but you said that the denialism made it worse. i can't imagine how you'd even begin to back that up. ~a
[2022-06-13 15:46:17] - a: You have an answer for sc2 email since you didn't get to play last week? -Daniel
[2022-06-13 15:45:48] - a: I'd probably need to brush up on history to give an accurate ranking? I wouldn't dismiss a both 25% ranking out of hand though? I feel like its possible he floats up towards to below average once I went through reviewing old school presidents. Maybe that isn't a lot of distinction though. -Daniel
[2022-06-13 15:42:49] - a: there were warnings from economists about inflation. - mig
[2022-06-13 15:40:58] - paul: "I really honestly do think he's more than a little senile at this point too" i've been saying this since before he was elected. you're also 100% about the gaffs. that also started well before his election and inauguration. . . . i'd put him in the bottom quartile and i assume you agree to that. daniel? ~a
[2022-06-13 15:36:03] - It's pretty disgraceful how little accountability there was over Afghanistan debacle. However, right the decision to pull out, we have really no idea how many people we left behind, and 13 soldiers died in the chaos of it. That nobody in the administration really took any responsibility for it is just fucking bananas. - mig
[2022-06-13 15:35:04] - mig: "which certainly made it worse". citation needed. ~a
[2022-06-13 15:34:17] - paul: "ask what an employee's gender...is" this is totally fine, imo. "and/or gender assigned at birth" no, i don't like this question at all. ~a
[2022-06-13 15:33:41] - daniel: like the inflation thing still feels like a major fuck up to me. Inflation happening in the first place isn't his fault, but the year long denialism (which certainly made it worse) absolutely is. - mig
[2022-06-13 15:32:03] - paul: "I think if Trump were never elected, we would probably be talking about how Biden was an all-time bad President" i agree with this, yep. worse than bush? i don't know, maybe. worse than nixon, no of course not. ~a
[2022-06-13 15:32:01] - yeah I don't think I can blame covid death's on Biden. I think maybe R politicians didn't come out hard enough in support of measures / masks but even then I'm not really sure. McConnell was pro mask I'm pretty sure. -Daniel
[2022-06-13 15:30:31] - paul/mig: i do feel like miguel thinks that the inflation bullshit is biden's fault? is that correct? is that fair? ~a
[2022-06-13 15:30:28] - paul: Oh yeah Afghanistan (which is a ridiculous statement in some ways). I think its hard for me to say how much was his fault but yeah happened under his watch so I can get that. -Daniel
[2022-06-13 15:29:55] - paul: "I almost feel bad for Biden because I don't think it's entirely directly his fault" yeah, i feel the same about trump and covid19. the one trainwreck that wasn't trump's fault. he def made it worse, but, obviously not his fault. ~a
[2022-06-13 15:29:27] - Daniel: Border issues with kids in cages, massive COVID deaths (more than during Trump's admin), Ukraine war. It's just been non-stop badness during his admin, both in terms of things pretty directly his fault and also things it's hard to blame him for (but which will go down in history as happening on his watch). Fair or not, that's what happens with Presidents. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:25:54] - Daniel: The market going south is going to sink his approval ratings and his chances at re-election, but I think his awfulness goes well beyond that. He remains an epic gaffe machine and the administration keeps having to walk back statements he makes. I really honestly do think he's more than a little senile at this point too. Afghanistan was an epic disaster even if I applaud him making the right decision. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:16:19] - Is Biden all time bad or just there? I get that Biden doesn't have a ton of feathers in his hat and I wouldn't call him great or anything obviously but is it all time bad just cause the market went south? -Daniel
[2022-06-13 15:14:49] - paul: Insurer's I would totally get wanting to know current gender and/or gender at birth for actuarial ($) reasons. Employers might depend on the work. Does gender matter for a pilot or software engineer? But maybe some other job its more relevant. -Daniel
[2022-06-13 15:06:52] - Sanity check: Is it insulting and completely outside the norm for an employer (and/or insurer) to ask what an employee's gender (and/or gender assigned at birth) is? I get the whole dead-naming thing and preferred pronouns but I've never filled out a survey (particularly one around employment) that asked my gender and even remotely thought it was an inappropriate question. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:03:59] - No argument from me that Trump was a horrible President, but I do think it's telling that the only thing Biden can really hang his hat on right now is that he's not as bad as a historically awful President that preceded him. I think if Trump were never elected, we would probably be talking about how Biden was an all-time bad President. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:01:58] - a: Oddly enough, in terms of the current inflation, I almost feel bad for Biden because I don't think it's entirely directly his fault. It's a confluence of events (some of which he and his party had strong influence in, like the stimulus checks). And yeah, Putin is playing a role with increasing gas prices and whatnot. -Paul
[2022-06-13 15:00:14] - mig: short amount of time? you mean 1.5 years? how many hundreds of millions of trainwrecks did trump have by this time in his presedency? i know i'm comparing a shitty president to an even shittier president, but i'm, like ok with that, man. ~a
[2022-06-13 14:54:04] - a: i dunno if it's "fuck democrats" or more so the frustration at the trainwreck that's unfolded over such a short amount of time. - mig
[2022-06-13 14:13:20] - paul: makes sense, and i actually agree . . . kinda, depending on how you interpret that first sentence. i.e. i hate both parties when they're in power a little bit more than i hate THAT party when it's not in power. iow, i do NOT ever like republicans more than democrats regardless of the-state-of-power. ~a
[2022-06-13 14:10:14] - a: It's hard for me to not hate the party in power a little more. They are usually in the news more often and they're the ones getting things done. -Paul
[2022-06-13 13:49:36] - you're right though. i consider them as being significantly better. ~a
[2022-06-13 13:49:05] - paul: i actually read it correctly. or, i think i read it as "it's not different". ~a
[2022-06-13 13:48:29] - not THAT different. Stupid typing. -Paul
[2022-06-13 13:48:13] - a: Heh, it's not the different, right? I mean, I think the difference between you and I when it comes to things like this is I expect near Republican levels of idiocy and badness from Democrats where I think you still think of them as being significantly better? -Paul
[2022-06-13 13:40:38] - it's funny how differently you and miguel viewed that video vs me. i'm like, oh you silly democrats, being dumb again. and you and miguel are all, fuck democrats they're the worst. ~a
[2022-06-13 13:40:25] - oh wow i did. they move so slowly that having them in the wrong place can't really be corrected. tactical jumps also have to be done . . . tactically. ~a
[2022-06-13 13:38:18] - a: "i feel like he did pretty will with those BCs but i also think he was just really really good at micro" The Terran was good at micro with his BCs? I mean, he's probably a pro-level player so it makes sense, but I didn't see any crazy looking micro. -Paul
[2022-06-13 13:36:46] - yeah . . . but it's a RNC video. of course it's going to be in a bad light
~a[2022-06-13 13:36:46] - a: Putin's price hike? Oh, everybody's been saying it recently. Biden a lot. It's a key democratic talking point near as I can tell. -Paul
[2022-06-13 13:36:14] - a: I think the worst part of your video is the dismissive "nobody thinks inflation won't be transitory" lines. Plenty of people thought we had a major inflation problem coming and just ignoring those people seems childish. -Paul
[2022-06-13 13:35:51] - yeah it's dumb. who said it? i assume it was jen psaki? ~a
[2022-06-13 13:35:13] - a: "Putin's price hike" is such a horrible term. I get what they're trying to do, but man does it seem tone deaf and clumsily executed. -Paul
[2022-06-12 04:07:00] - dutch, yeah that sounds right. i've heard that accent a bunch, but couldn't figure where in europe it was from. ~a
[2022-06-12 04:05:54] - a: harstem vs rotterdam definitely is a bit confusing. Also odd that in two dutch SC2 people are so prominent in the community. -Daniel
[2022-06-11 22:26:59] - paul: i watched your video, and i feel like he did pretty will with those BCs but i also think he was just really really good at micro. there was a million times where i thought he should have lost. ~a
[2022-06-11 18:13:00] - in the harstem video i've been watching right now, he's like "you know they're going to have void rays, these guys only get void rays." then *immediately* there is a void ray ~a
[2022-06-11 18:10:28] - paul: in your link they have the same accents as harstem. and i'm literally watching a harstem video as we speak
~a[2022-06-11 18:04:43] - im warching rv and michelle is asleep. - mig
[2022-06-11 18:04:39] - mig: even adults aren't perfect. ~a
[2022-06-11 18:04:17] - aren’t the adults supposed to be in charge now? - mig
[2022-06-11 18:02:51] - dude, everybody on the message board on a saturday? what the hell? ~a
[2022-06-11 18:02:00] - a: i mean yeah pretty pro-gop, but … they’re not wrong. - mig
[2022-06-11 18:01:14] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn03NppP2jY Games like this are why I am always holding out hope that victory is possible in SC2. -Paul
[2022-06-11 13:07:13] - paul: sorry, this is a pro-republican video, and most of the comments in this subreddit are going to be moronic please don't read them, but this video about inflation is fun to watch. ~a
[2022-06-11 11:27:57] - paul: upro also split (2:1). ~a
[2022-06-10 19:59:44] - https://sports.yahoo.com/commanders-coach-ron-rivera-fines-jack-del-rio-100000-for-calling-capitol-insurrection-a-dust-up-183327478.html Looks like the local football team is still embarrassing itself despite the name change. -Paul
[2022-06-10 19:41:00] - a: Yeah. It obviously varies a fair bit (like MPG), but 2.7 to 3.7 seems about normal. -Paul
[2022-06-10 18:13:17] - i assume, since you're supposed to get ~18 kWh/100km, you typically see ~3 miles per kWh? ~a
[2022-06-10 18:11:48] - miles per kWh is similar, but inverted. which is kinda dumb, but i guess we're used to it. for the european value, take 62.15 (the number of miles in a metric century) and divide by your value. easy! ~a
[2022-06-10 17:58:28] - a: I don't pay attention to any of those stats. Only thing I moderately track is my miles per kWh. -Paul
[2022-06-10 17:55:29] - paul: at some point you can tune out death threats unless they get very, very specific, since I imagine anyone even remotely noteworthy deals with them. Someone showing up at near your house and saying they had the intention to kill you is several orders of magnitude worth of worry. - mig
[2022-06-10 17:44:17] - paul: i hate the idea of MPGe. europe gets it right again with kWh/100km. 114 mpge (combined city/highway) = 18 kWh/100km. which is pretty good. better than average (20 is the average, and lower is better). link (here they're using Wh/km which is 10x). ~a
[2022-06-10 17:36:20] - a: I decided to buy an EV as an inflation hedge instead of iBonds
-Paul[2022-06-10 17:35:49] - Re: Inflation. It's a little weird, though, because it looks like the prices of some things are starting to come down (or flatten). Real estate is obviously cooling off (partly due to mortgage rates). Used car prices seem to have moderated. Lumber prices are down from the crazy highs a few months ago. -Paul
[2022-06-10 17:35:02] - paul: i suggested ibonds. ~a
[2022-06-10 17:34:33] - mig: Don't disagree with that, but I also wonder if stuff like death threats for SCOTUS justices are (unfortunately) a little routine. -Paul
[2022-06-10 17:33:28] - a: Yeah, kind of wishing I had bought more iBonds a few months ago when I was deciding between that and the stock market.
-Paul[2022-06-10 17:17:48] - paul: inflation numbers just released. 8.5% yoy, vs 8.2% yoy last month. ~a
[2022-06-10 17:10:42] - mig: that's paul, not daniel. ~a
[2022-06-10 17:09:34] - daniel: sure it's a bigger story if he was more serious about carrying out the threat. The problem though, is this still is pretty grave on its own. If SCOTUS justices end up changing their mind on Dobbs from what are currently people expecting, the perception is that mob rule will get you what you want when it comes to any big SCOTUS ruling. That's like a BFD. - mig
[2022-06-10 15:58:00] - a: In the media's defense, there is a little question of how serious an attempt it was. Yes, he had all the equipment and the expressed intent, but he also apparently turned himself over as soon as he saw cops and the gun was unloaded? Is that right? -Paul
[2022-06-10 15:56:51] - Done. -Paul
[2022-06-10 15:55:29] - a: It was a 20-1 split? I'll change it now. Thanks. -Paul
[2022-06-10 14:51:09] - mig/paul: npr is discussing kavanaugh right now. they've been giving it a fuckton of time. i reverse what i said before about npr. ~a
[2022-06-10 14:50:24] - (ditto for C28 and C33) ~a
[2022-06-10 14:46:44] - daniel: i'd change C57 to =3334.34/20 (leaving the equation in the cell so the context and history is correctly preserved). ~a
[2022-06-10 14:45:13] - daniel: yes, paul needs to fix gurkie's amazon row manually. (also, it's not a 2-1 split) ~a
[2022-06-10 14:44:25] - a: Does an amazon stock split mean that Gurkie's fantasy investing thing is off? If the stock went down some but you have twice as much? -Daniel
[2022-06-10 13:57:14] - i watched most of the first day on 2x. the video of the riot was new to me though. and the video of bill barr. i watched all of that on 1x. watch the riot video and video of bill barr if you have time, it's new footage. the new thing they're proposing is that the proud boys and oathkeepers had a coordinated plan. my guess is that they'll tie the proud boys or oathkeepers to somebody specific. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:55:32] - mig: I think if the attempt had been more of actual attempt with shots fired or trying to break into the house or something like that my guess is it might be a bigger story. But I agree with Adrian that the 1/6 stuff is sucking air out of the room. -Daniel
[2022-06-10 13:54:03] - I didn't watch. Almost all hearings seem to be like more than 50% fluff before it gets to the point of whatever its doing. I'm impatient and willing to wait on reddit / npr telling me if anything notable happened. -Daniel
[2022-06-10 13:42:37] - i'll watch, but i don't think anything will come of them. i'm getting cynical in my old age. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:38:54] - a: I had somebody ask me if I was going to watch and my reaction was (basically) "oh, god no". I can't imagine actually wanting to watch that. I'm wondering if I am the oddball or not. -Paul
[2022-06-10 13:34:21] - i did. it was just an intro though. they'll re-continue next week. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:33:51] - Did anybody here watch any of the 1/6 hearings? -Paul
[2022-06-10 13:29:58] - We don't need to theorize about the news coverage if it was Sotomayor. We already know. Remember the hand wringing when Gorsuch tried to kill her by not wearing a mask? (Sarcasm! Don't kill me.) -Paul
[2022-06-10 13:26:21] - a: also consider the backdrop the Kavanaugh and other justices were essentially doxxed by a protest group. Flipping the script of a conservative group showing up at her house and her address being made public, I personally think we would probably not here the end of it for probably a month. - mig
[2022-06-10 13:25:52] - (not a 1-to-1 comparison, just suggesting it's not 100% partisan) not every person who runs onto the whitehouse lawn makes it to the front page of cnn. regardless of who the president currently is. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:24:07] - mig: i don't know. maybe it depends on other details? like, what else was going on in the world? i could imagine if a lone-wolf (like a real lone-wolf, like a truly independent crazy-person), had a plan to kill sotomayor but failed in his plan miserably AND there was like, i dunno, major developments in the russia war or something, i could imagine it getting completely buried. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:22:08] - a: you really don't believe if the target was Sotomayor that we wouldn't be hearing about this for weeks on end? - mig
[2022-06-10 13:21:17] - i'm a bit surprised that cnn and npr don't have many follow-up details. i don't think it's 100% partisan though! the two stories aren't even in the same ballpark: but i do agree that they're both grave, and do agree that there should definitely have been more (follow-up) kavanaugh material on cnn and npr. otoh, paul's whole opener of "Curious if anybody here heard about the assassination attempt on Kavanaugh yesterday..." is a bit off. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:17:00] - And I get the 1/6 hearings are a big deal (they should be), but this incident is pretty adjacent to it in terms of importance, assuming of course we actually care about the integrity of our institutions and not partisan mud slinging. - mig
[2022-06-10 13:14:46] - CNN, NYT, NBC news, though, it's almost as if it never happened if you look on their front pages. - mig
[2022-06-10 13:11:46] - mig: yeah, i've found three recent articles from them. one only recently fell off the front page. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:11:00] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/09/roske-kavanaugh-911-tapes/ 911 call from the suspect. I'll leave my WaPo tagline sarcasm out of this one because they are providing decent coverage on this story. - mig
[2022-06-10 13:11:00] - mig: i see the article all over the washingtonpost. i don't see mention of the house bill, but that's not terribly surprising or weird. the washingtonpost touches on like, what, 1% of house bills? ~a
[2022-06-10 13:08:41] - mig: paul already posted that link. ~a
[2022-06-10 13:08:08] - a: house bill being considered in response to the murder attempt. - mig
[2022-06-10 13:04:55] - https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1534629987730526208 - mig
[2022-06-10 13:03:57] - mig: "some new developments" oh? ~a
[2022-06-10 12:49:00] - Considering we're giving a lot of airtime to attacks on our democratic institutions (and we absolutely should), I find it more than a bit irritating the whole attempting to murder a supreme court justice thing kind of just came and went as a news story. - mig
[2022-06-10 12:46:52] - a: the kavananaugh story seems to not be covered very much by most of the outlets I'd expect it to (CNN already has it off its front page despite some new developments). Somehow I don't think it's much of stretch to think this would be front page news everywhere if the target was someone like .. Sotomayor. - mig
[2022-06-10 11:34:08] - daniel: i like your answer, and i agree the ages need to change, but i feel that anybody that tries to change the ages will get their hands cut off. or, some sort of analogy. ~a
[2022-06-10 11:27:02] - paul: oh, wow i didn't realize that amazon *finally* split. i kinda wish they had done this sooner: the last time i sold amazon, i was forced to sell more than i wanted to. next up: google. ~a
[2022-06-09 18:01:41] - I do generally think defined benefit plans are worse than ones where you own your own money (for me and people I can help) but they do require people to be more active in their financial decisions etc so I'm not sure if that is realistic in terms of a solution across an entire populace. -Daniel
[2022-06-09 18:00:31] - I think ages could change some sure? I think taxes are probably the bigger game changer in terms of helping it out. I just think that as a economic system there is enough wealth in it to sustain SS. -Daniel
[2022-06-09 17:50:18] - do you think those changes will move the ages things take affect? can you be specific about what policies could *possibly* be passed and would actually solve any of the problems that SS has? ~a
[2022-06-09 17:45:08] - I don't think SS is inherently unsustainable(thats a long word to type out). It might be with current funding etc but I think policies / taxes could be changed to make it sustainable. -Daniel
[2022-06-09 17:18:01] - a: Demographics mostly (population growth slow down and also people living longer and us not increasing the age that people receive benefits). I think you could argue the general fiscal health of the federal government in terms of the national debt is another concern. -Paul
[2022-06-09 17:12:13] - paul: unsustainable why? . . . i have my own reason (two reasons actually) and i wonder if it's the same as yours. ~a
[2022-06-09 17:11:01] - a: I don't assume SS can't live with inflation. I do assume it's unsustainable, regardless of inflation though.
-Paul[2022-06-09 17:10:17] -
i was about to say. ~a[2022-06-09 17:10:09] - a: Ah, should've read more. Thanks. I'll change it. -Paul
[2022-06-09 17:09:35] - Daniel: Yeah, Google's API goes wonky sometimes. Usually it's temporary, although it has been screwed up for AXON (ticker change from AXXN I believe) for awhile. -Paul
[2022-06-09 15:11:22] - no clue what cedear is. but if you google cedear you get a lot of crazy results. ~a
[2022-06-09 15:07:50] - paul/daniel: it's because the stock ticker changed. it's "meta" now. ~a
[2022-06-09 15:06:26] - paul: yes. it was apparently a bit higher in the 40s. i agree it's been much lower, especially recently. but, to assume that social security can't live with inflation, seems to blindly ignore history. ~a
[2022-06-09 14:50:51] - Gurkies stock challenge thing seems to have gone crazy some, google apparently thinks FB is worth 5k. -Daniel
[2022-06-09 14:46:27] - a: Well, it HAS been higher (what, like 14%?), but it's also been much lower, especially recently. -Paul
prev <-> next