prev <-> next
[2022-07-01 12:22:45] - a: "do you still believe that nothing new or interesting will/have come out of the jan-6 hearings?" Pretty much, yeah. Did I miss something new and interesting? I guess people got hot and bothered about some incident involving attacking a SS agent, but now that might not have happened? -Paul
[2022-07-01 12:21:40] - a: I don't know enough about the SCOTUS case and the clean air act to respond. I assumed the issue was Congress set vague goals and the EPA was given latitude to figure out how to enforce it? Is that accurate? -Paul
[2022-07-01 12:18:02] - a: Also, my statement was less about you specifically and more about everybody who thinks like you. Maybe the best piece of advice I can give is for everybody (me included) to be more involved in the primary process. That's super time consuming, though. -Paul
[2022-07-01 12:15:53] - a: "how would you like me to do that? please suggest something i'm not already doing." You're asking the wrong person.
Not sure anybody here has less political pull than me. My candidates always lose hugely. My issues often seem to be on a one way trip backwards. -Paul[2022-07-01 04:29:10] - paul: do you still believe that nothing new or interesting will/have come out of the jan-6 hearings? ~a
[2022-07-01 04:29:05] - paul: "get laws changed" is literally what you'd need to do if you *didn't* want the epa to do what it did. the epa is literally required to do what it did following section 111 of the clean air act. *not* doing it would be breaking the law. ~a
[2022-06-30 20:01:13] - paul: i'd also like to question your premise: "get laws changed". i believe this happened already. and a minority of the supreme court agrees with me. it's section 111 of the clean air act which was first passed by the legislature in 1963. ~a
[2022-06-30 17:49:04] - paul: for context, these are things i'm already doing: i vote, i donate to causes i care about, i petition my elected officials, i participate in (mostly) peaceful protests, i actively participate in advocacy organizations. things i'm, admittedly, not doing yet: volunteering in campaigns, running for office. ~a
[2022-06-30 17:43:35] - paul: "Disagree with what is happening? Get laws changed" how would you like me to do that? please suggest something i'm not already doing. ~a
[2022-06-30 17:43:04] - paul: right, but think of it from a democrat perspective. very few legislators are interested in actually/actively helping the environment. if they won't do anything to help the environment, someone needs to. career government employees aren't the best people for the job, but they're slightly better than nobody. ~a
[2022-06-30 17:42:54] - It's interesting. With some of these (not all, but some) major cases, it's mostly about pushing responsibility back to the legislature and much of it could be solved by legislation. Disagree with what is happening? Get laws changed (or enacted). -Paul
[2022-06-30 17:40:41] - a: West Virginia v. EPA? I haven't been following it closely, but I think I am good with that? I prefer climate change regulations to be in the hands of the legislation instead of bureaucrats. -Paul
[2022-06-30 17:38:08] - a: I modified my PvtM records to account for the split and will check fantasy investing now. Prior stock market challenges might have to wait. -Paul
[2022-06-30 17:11:53] - paul: shopify had a stock split yesterday. it probably only matters for the historical-challenges. ~a
[2022-06-30 16:50:49] - jfc, there has been a fourth landmark ruling. all four rulings the past week have been very jarring as a borderline-democrat to say the least. the supreme court can suck a dick. ~a
[2022-06-30 16:39:40] - paul: yeah ok i looked at my own link again (the svg) and i was misinterpreting it. most of europe had limits less than 17 weeks, and even now, most of the US was more than 17 weeks. so, i agree with your initial premise, and i even think i might go further. most of the US is better than most of europe today, but europe is far more consistent in what they allow, whereas we have outright bans in many states. ~a
[2022-06-30 15:37:32] - https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-mississippis-15-week-limit-on-abortion-in-the-mainstream-of-european-law/ Most of the links I can find come from anti-abortion sources (including this one) and I don't understand the meaning of "prior" here, but maybe there is some data that can be dug into. -Paul
[2022-06-30 15:32:35] - a: Yeah, I dunno, I don't really want to dive into the intricacies of each country right now considering there are still variables like health of mother and whatnot. I can try to look later. I'm fine if people want to take what I said with a grain of salt, though. -Paul
[2022-06-30 15:31:35] - a: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-it-harder-get-abortion-europe-america-1705305 "the majority of European countries permit abortions on request between 10-14 weeks of gestation" That's not the same thing as banning it past those weeks, though. -Paul
[2022-06-30 15:27:54] - a: That's fair. I know next to nothing about the topic and brought up what I heard on the podcast because this was basically the first I heard about abortion in Europe. I trust the podcast, but they could be wrong. -paul
[2022-06-30 15:23:31] - paul: i don't think our maps necessarily disagree, though (except now i'm doubting the whole 17-week thing). your map focuses on the exact week, but glosses over whether "socio-economic-factors" are required or not. whereas mine ignores the exact week, and focuses more strictly on the exact wording of the law. also, your map completely lacks any sources and was uploaded yesterday, so i kinda doubt it on its face. ~a
[2022-06-30 15:20:38] - paul: lol your image was added to wikipedia yesterday. hmmm. ~a
[2022-06-30 15:18:31] - a: I'm not sure I follow your bodily-autonomy of non-fetuses wording. It's interesting, because your graphic seems to indicate England is very strict, whereas mine indicates they are very lax. Definitely seem to be some contradictions there. -Paul
[2022-06-30 15:16:13] - a: That wikipedia link seems a little vague with the wording. How about this one in terms of being more Europe centric and specific? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe -Paul
[2022-06-30 14:38:41] - i'm a bit surprised by "no gestational limit" actually. (au: act, au: jbt , coral sea, hm, us: ak, us: co, us: dc, us: nj, us: nm, us: or, us: vt) new mexico? alaska? with everything i know about alaska, wow. ~a
[2022-06-30 14:03:24] - like, i think you and the podcast seem to go completely the opposite direction as me: i say, except literally-england, and a few parts of australia, i could live pretty much anywhere in the english-speaking world and be doing ok with respect to bodily-autonomy of non-fetuses. ~a
[2022-06-30 13:59:30] - paul: does what you say disagree with File:Abortion_Laws.svg? that map uses 17 weeks as "the line" which goes completely at odds with your 12-15 week mark. i think either you or wikipedia are just plain wrong. ~a
[2022-06-30 13:06:58] - So even though I would imagine many people think of Europe as being more liberal than the US (particularly culturally), that's not necessarily the case here. Or maybe it is now. -Paul
[2022-06-30 13:06:11] - Apparently many (most?) European countries have bans in place around the 12-15 week mark. Seems stark when compared to Youngkin's recent proposal to put a 15 week ban in place in VA. -Paul
[2022-06-30 13:05:17] - Listening to a podcast about the overturn of Roe. All four participants are against the recent decision, but an interesting point was brought up that apparently the US has (until now) been relatively permissive in terms of abortion when compared to Europe. -Paul
[2022-06-30 03:59:00] - Manchin is a weird case. He’s generally deferential to accepting the presidential nominee (note: he voted no on barret due to the circumstances). - mig
[2022-06-30 02:43:21] - a: Yeah, my guess is similar to Miguel's. I assume they felt like I did that Roe was too well established to be overturned and thus they felt genuinely shocked and betrayed. Even if that wasn't the case, it's politically necessary for them to at least claim to be betrayed. -Paul
[2022-06-29 18:47:06] - a: maybe they miscalculated. I'll admit I certainly did. - mig
[2022-06-29 16:10:20] - paul/mig: do you think susan collins and manchin are idiots? they have publicly said they feel betrayed. they came out of the hearings (and private meetings) with the impression that kavenaugh (and barrett) wouldn't overturn roe. are they idiots? or is it all a ruse? and they don't mind/care if roe was overturned? ~a
[2022-06-29 16:06:30] - this is a major step back for the country. and it's a step back that we may not rectify before i die. ~a
[2022-06-29 16:05:57] - paul: yeah, ok i concede. again. what kavenaugh did (well, this time) wasn't naughty, it just annoys me. ~a
[2022-06-29 16:01:48] - a: I kind of think a similar thing with the Obamacare decision. I think it was wrongly decided but it is what it is and is in the past and unlikely to get overturned anytime soon. -Paul
[2022-06-29 16:00:44] - a: "you definitely can't both think that it's wrongly decided *and* settled something at the same time" Wait, why not? Those don't seem to be in contradiction at all. Heck, it would've probably described my opinion. I am dubious there is a constitutional right to an abortion, but it was also settled decades ago and seemingly set. -Paul
[2022-06-29 15:59:05] - a: Because it seems like calling Roe "settled precedent" in this case isn't a lie. I mean, it was, but settled precedent can also be overturned. -Paul
[2022-06-29 15:57:22] - paul: you definitely can't both think that it's wrongly decided *and* settled something at the same time. miguel correctly pointed out that he is allowed to change his mind over four years, but imo that's not what happened. ~a
[2022-06-29 15:56:07] - paul: nope. it was never about overturning roe. it was about him (always?) thinking that it was "wrongly decided". ~a
[2022-06-29 15:55:05] - a: So, I haven't been following this story very closely at all and am not sure if Kavanaugh said something different to Collins in some private meeting or whatnot. Is the accusation that in private he promised her he wouldn't overturn Roe? -Paul
[2022-06-29 15:13:41] - paul: what do you think about the future of tsla? i feel like their power-wall and solar panels are the only thing that distinguish them (in a positive way) from other car companies providing similar vehicles. tsla had a 10 year head-start, but i feel like their lead is dwindling. (their self-driving features are not looking great, so i see it as a negative) ~a
[2022-06-29 02:37:14] - paul: this video reminded me of our conversation the other day (hopefully you take this in the correct light: i was just reminded of the conversation, i'm not trying to make a point). ~a
[2022-06-28 16:04:16] - https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/27/bodies-18-wheeler-san-antonio-lackland/ curious how long this will stay in the news. - mig
[2022-06-27 17:05:58] - a: I dunno about lying, I think she might have implied something in what Kavanaugh privately told her that made her hear what she wanted to hear. - mig
[2022-06-27 17:02:59] - paul/mig: do you think susan collins lied? ~a
[2022-06-27 17:00:29] - yes. ~a
[2022-06-27 16:58:40] - a: and even so, opinions are allowed to change, aren't they? His nomination hearing was like 4 years ago (2018). - mig
[2022-06-27 16:55:17] - ok. ~a
[2022-06-27 16:53:15] - a: I looked at most of what he said on the record, and I don't see any lies. I see lots of weaselly worded statements, but that's par for the course for the nomination process. - mig
[2022-06-27 16:48:14] - paul: i know it could all be bluster, and maybe he's a bit of an idiot, but at least one congress-member feels lied to. ~a
[2022-06-27 16:47:13] - paul: kavanaugh knew he couldn't get away with saying nothing. so he gave his opinion on the matter. which turned out to be a bit of a lie. to congress. maybe it wasn't a lie, but maybe it was. but it was to congress. that's the hang-up. ~a
[2022-06-27 16:40:38] - That's why the hearings are often a little useless and instead just involve a lot of grand-standing. Settled precedent often gets overturned. See Brown v Board of Education and Plessy v Ferguson. -Paul
[2022-06-27 16:39:18] - I don't quite get the whole hang-up over "settled precedent". I thought everybody understood that SCOTUS nominees weren't supposed to weigh in on potential future cases during confirmation hearings because it could bias things. -Paul
[2022-06-27 16:08:50] - mig: of course it's appropriate. but we're literally talking about him calling roe both "settled precedent" followed a few months later calling *the* *same* *precedent* wrongly decided. listening to all arguments is great, i'm all for that. ~a
[2022-06-27 14:40:49] - from the npr article: Additionally, Kavanaugh said it can be appropriate for the court to revisit prior decisions. "I listen to all arguments," he said. "You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. But you listen to all arguments." - mig
[2022-06-27 14:29:58] - mig: ok, fine: after telling everyone that roe was "settled precedent" kavanaugh calls it "wrongly decided". this still seems like a quick and peculiar logical jump: changing your mind in that exact amount of time, about that exact thing, seems to be very likely a bold-faced lie. he very likely lied about one or the other. (maybe even both, but that's kinda irrelevant) ~a
[2022-06-26 14:06:34] - “Settle Law” supposedly came from a private meeting from Collins. I have some doubts this happened because it does feel a little inappropriate for a potential scotus justice to make such a promise ( feels quid pro quo-y) - mig
[2022-06-26 13:56:51] - https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings he publicly called it “settled precedent” but also allowed that precedents can still be overturned, albeit not lightly. - mig
[2022-06-26 11:01:17] - mig: yes of course he did. the first quote was very popular during the confirmation hearings. ~a
[2022-06-26 01:20:10] - title: did he actually say those words? - mig
[2022-06-25 02:52:50] - Daniel: I'm on vacation, so it's hard for me to watch that video, but I'm making a mental note to check it out when I get back! -Paul
[2022-06-24 19:01:17] - mig: "'coupled with other testimony demonstrates both trump's substantive involvement and corrupt intent, requisite state of mind,' he said, using terms for legal thresholds that a hypothetical prosecution would need to reach." according to business insider, these are legal thresholds that are required for prosecution. ~a
[2022-06-24 18:34:19] - a: i dunno, I don't think I'm being unreasonable that if someone is confident that someone committed a crime, that the person be able to cite what that crime actually is. Holder hasn't (to my knoweldge), so I do hold his observations in the "partisan wishful thinking" category. - mig
[2022-06-24 18:23:15] - a: maybe it's an act. It's maybe a little better take than the idea that the justices perjured themselves in their nomination hearings. Even if they did all say that they would never never ever overturn Roe v. Wade (which they didn't), that kind of sidesteps the whole issue of them being allowed to change their mind on the subject. - mig
[2022-06-24 18:16:17] - some people are just stupid. i really don't think i like most of the manchin hate from the left, but this is so ridiculous i have hate to hate him for it. is this all an act? i don't even know how to feel about this. ~a
[2022-06-24 18:05:28] - 100% mitch mcconnell made today possible. the vacancy in FUCKING february 2016 was required to be filled by the president. ~a
[2022-06-24 17:38:01] - mig: i don't know. probably that you can't give an illegal order, you can't tell the DOJ to make a public statement that is strictly false. i don't know the legal statute, because of course i don't, but you have to imagine that there is one, right? against the DOJ just making strictly false statements? and the president ordering them to do exactly that is also probably illegal? ~a
[2022-06-24 17:36:10] - wikipedia already updated. wikipedia is fucking fast, man! ~a
[2022-06-24 16:58:13] - Also Roe finally happened. -Daniel
[2022-06-24 16:57:58] - paul: More pro stalker propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGk9JgpLVAw -Daniel
[2022-06-24 15:31:38] - a: What specific crime are we talking about? I did a quick search on what Holder said but it was only described as a smoking gun, but a smoking gun to what? Like what specific legal statute? - mig
[2022-06-24 15:24:50] - wouldn't the former AG know if it was technically a crime? ~a
[2022-06-24 15:24:16] - a: probably should be, but might technically not be. - mig
[2022-06-24 15:21:46] - "trump told doj 'just say the election was corrupt'". according to former (democratic) AG, this is evidence of a crime. is it? i mean, if it isn't, it should be, right? ~a
[2022-06-24 14:55:07] - mig: "we probably differ on our personal risk tolerance" can you be more specific? i'm not sure i agree unless you're saying i take more risks (or different risks) than you do. ~a
[2022-06-24 14:34:40] - a: we probably differ on our personal risk tolerance. I can't really quantify it, and admit it's more feelings (and probably my own personal experiences) than anything else. - mig
[2022-06-24 14:14:06] - mig: "is it?" yes. yes it is. despite my language, i don't envision a world without cars. just more equity of public spending? more choice of transportation. a great decentering! ~a
[2022-06-24 14:10:41] - mig: "Ultimately the risk of injury/death in a MV is still really low" it's really not. what do you consider a high risk of injury? "specifically just going to work, yes car 100% of the time" we might actually agree mostly then. yes? i also take cars on occasion, and love to take public transportation/walk when it makes sense. ~a
[2022-06-24 14:10:12] - a: is it? I keep looking at these anti car sentiments and I'm not so sure. - mig
[2022-06-24 14:07:21] - mig: "I do believe all the trade offs we make in having cars is overwhelmingly more positive than us not having cars". why the false dichotomy??? you know these aren't the only two choices. ~a
[2022-06-24 14:04:24] - your statistics sound scary but doesn't move the needle much for me (maybe that makes me a bad person). Ultimately the risk of injury/death in a MV is still really low. Ultimately, I do believe all the trade offs we make in having cars is overwhelmingly more positive than us not having cars. - mig
[2022-06-24 14:01:16] - a: my statement on transportation choice was meant in the scenario where i'm just trying to get from point A to point B. I do go running almost every day, and I'm not going to be taking a car when it obviously doesn't make much sense (i.e. park across the street). As for specifically just going to work, yes car 100% of the time. - mig
[2022-06-24 13:47:43] - mig: it's a destresser for me too. but only if i'm not in (and contributing to) a traffic jam. what about "physically"? ~a
[2022-06-24 13:33:06] - a: 4. not sure I follow. Maybe I'm weird, but I *like* driving? It's kind of a de-stresser for me. - mig
[2022-06-23 18:04:53] - mig: 11. it is the cause of death for over 1,600 children under the age of fifteen in the US per year. 12. it's the greatest cause of death to healthy people. 13. the financial costs for the 15 min trip are kinda crazy: $.25t per year in the united states alone? ~a
[2022-06-23 18:04:29] - mig: i guess i'll keep going. "I'm choosing the 15 minute trip 100% of the time" i feel like taking the 15 minute trip isn't exactly free of baggage: 9. it contributes to ~50,000,000 injuries each year worldwide, right? a huge portion of those people that live will be permanently disabled. 10. more than half of those killed didn't take the 15 minute trip: they are vulnerable road users that took (by choice or not) a different way. ~a
[2022-06-23 15:02:47] - should i stop? i think i have more. ~a
[2022-06-23 15:00:04] - mig: 8. i feel like eventually we won't be able to do this anymore. the inefficiency will catch up with us. the roads will have traffic jams every day. i think we might already be there? ~a
[2022-06-23 14:58:54] - mig: "I'm choosing less trip time every time" 5. sometimes driving isn't the fastest method to get where you want to go. maybe fairfax county sucks, but in arlington it's common. "I'm choosing less trip time every time" 6. *every* time? you never go out for a walk? do you ever go to a gym? do you enjoy the out doors? do you enjoy parks or your neighborhood? do you ever enjoy your trip to work? 7. uuuh climate change? ~a
[2022-06-23 14:58:52] - mig: "I'm choosing the 15 minute trip 100% of the time". 4. you aren't concerned what this does to your health? mental and physical health? i am concerned with that, which is why i choose the more fun trip 100% of the time, whatever that means for me on that specific day. ~a
[2022-06-23 14:47:36] - paul: taller is a problem i think. the bumper is probably higher and the hood is probably higher. i feel that way about audrey's rav4 as well. the ioniq is probably leaps and bounds better (in bumper height, hood height, width, length, weight, fuel efficiency, etc) than the rav4. ~a
[2022-06-23 14:45:14] - mig: in the current fairafax county suburbs, you're right, trip times are pretty bad, but 1. i'd like fairfax county as it is right now to change (slowly). 2. not everybody lives in fairfax county. 3. you still aren't considering all the options: walking and public transportation. fucking forget bikes, you guys! ~a
[2022-06-23 13:11:12] - I'm also making the choice to not bike during inclement weather 100% of the time regardless of trip time. - mig
[2022-06-23 13:10:26] - a: we can maybe make paul's example less dumb. Given the choice between a 15 minute drive and a 40 minute bike ride to work (just estimating), I'm choosing the 15 minute trip 100% of the time. I don't care how convenient and road friendly you make bike riding, I'm choosing less trip time every time. It's not a problem I believe high speed rail will fix either. - mig
[2022-06-23 03:30:07] - The most SUV thing about it is probably the trunk. It's got a bit of a hatch-back feel to it. I suppose it is also a tiny bit taller feeling than the Camry was. -Paul
[2022-06-22 22:13:10] - a: Engine size maybe? Don't know for sure either though. -Daniel
[2022-06-22 21:23:19] - paul: yeah, i looked at pictures of the ioniq. i wonder what exactly makes it a compact-suv? i guess our american cars have gotten so fucking big that even our regular cars are actually SUVs? ~a
[2022-06-22 20:56:14] - a: It's all a little moot, though. The Ioniq is apparently 1" wider than the Model 3, 2" less long, and maybe 6" taller? So it's not a significant difference. -Paul
[2022-06-22 20:54:36] - a: Fantasizing about changing my life, then?
"it's interesting that you wouldn't just get a model 3, and . . . car seats that fit in a model 3?" This is all branched from that. I don't think it's unfair to say you theorized that I could have gotten a smaller car. My subsequent comments have been about how I could have, but wasn't interested in the trade-offs. -Paul[2022-06-22 20:42:00] - paul: you keep thinking that i want you to change your life. i don't. ~a
[2022-06-22 20:36:04] - a: I'm replying to your suggestion that I can fit my three kids in the back seat of a smaller car. Yes, I probably could, but I am saying that a smaller car is the wrong tool for the job. Because I have three kids and there is no high speed raid to their school and swimming pool and gymnastics class and every restaurant we frequent and grocery stores.... I need a slightly roomier car. -Paul
[2022-06-22 20:26:38] - paul: "you could probably fit two people into a car smaller than an SUV easier than I can fit my 5 member family" i'm not sure what this is replying to, but regardless i agree with this statement. ~a
[2022-06-22 20:26:02] - paul: "'your example is dumb' That was my intent" i'm not sure if you get my meaning. i can't bike somewhere thousands of kilometers away, therefore i need a car . . . is kinda a dumb logical jump. you're obviously using the wrong tool for the job, paul! maybe, i'd argue that since our high speed rail is so terrible, therefore you need a car . . . that logic i can get behind. ~a
[2022-06-22 20:24:48] - a: I might suggest you could probably fit two people into a car smaller than an SUV easier than I can fit my 5 member family. -Paul
[2022-06-22 20:21:24] - paul: "you don't see the need for families to have cars, period" this one is back a few comments: i'd like to say that i disagree with this assessment of how i feel. families in areas with terrible infrastructure absolutely need to have cars. i own two cars (one of them an SUV!) and hate hypocrisy. ~a
[2022-06-22 20:19:51] - a: "your example is dumb" That was my intent. -Paul
[2022-06-22 20:16:24] - paul: i know that you can't take high speed rail to cincinnati, but that's exactly something i'd like addressed. ~a
[2022-06-22 20:11:15] - paul: your example is dumb. ~a
[2022-06-22 19:43:29] - a: I know. We have a few of them. Even in the "compact SUV" Ioniq we can barely fit 3 kids in the back and they complain about being uncomfortable. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are trade-offs. Just like in theory my family and I could bike to Cincinnati instead of risking people's lives by driving a car, but we prefer a <50 hour trip one way. -Paul
[2022-06-22 19:10:49] - paul: googling around on the internet, apparently they do make car seats for small cars. ~a
[2022-06-22 17:20:21] - paul: i agree with what you say in that last one. you had specifically asked about SUVs, not the ioniq or the camry. ~a
[2022-06-22 17:19:22] - paul: "Do they have different car seat rules?" do we have car seat rules that encourage larger vehicles to the detriment of kids on foot? yes, probably we do. ~a
[2022-06-22 17:13:05] - a: Well, I can't speak for bumper positions, but I don't think the Ioniq's is that different from the Camry. As for climate change, I would argue the Ioniq is probably net better for the climate than the Camry was. -Paul
[2022-06-22 17:12:07] - a: Is it impossible? No. But there is a lot of space between "easy" and "impossible". Does Europe make it work? I don't know. Isn't their fertility rate lower than ours? Do they have different car seat rules? -Paul
[2022-06-22 17:08:21] - paul: (my number two reason is climate change, if you were curious). ~a
[2022-06-22 17:08:04] - paul: it's about bumper position. SUVs (and trucks) have their bumper further up which causes a dramatic increase in fatalities. ~a
[2022-06-22 16:59:51] - paul: "Why are you anti-SUV? How does it hurt you?" isn't my answer going to be obvious to you? they literally hurt people who are outside of the SUV. pedestrians mostly. kids. kids and pedestrians. and that's just my number one reason. ~a
[2022-06-22 16:56:58] - paul: "You might be underestimating how easy it is to just buy 'car seats that fit in a model 3'." using this logic, though, is it impossible for people with kids (multiple) to own a sedan or compact car? doesn't europe, as a continent, seem to disagree with this assessment? something doesn't add up? ~a
[2022-06-22 16:39:30] - a: But, more practically speaking, there's a reason the Ioniq 5 is considered a "compact SUV". It honestly doesn't look like an SUV and looks more like a Sedan. Why are you anti-SUV? How does it hurt you? -Paul
[2022-06-22 16:38:49] - a: Also, you don't see the need for families to have cars, period, so it's understandable you wouldn't see the need for SUVs.
It might surprise you to find out we find the extra space in our minivan useful too. Otherwise we would be taking two cars on our upcoming Cincinnati trip. -Paul[2022-06-22 16:37:18] - a: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2020/10/cars-kids-and-unintended-costs It's apparently hard enough to have a noticeable impact on fertility rates. -Paul
[2022-06-22 16:35:00] - a: You might be underestimating how easy it is to just buy "car seats that fit in a model 3". It's hard enough to find two booster seats AND toddler seat which will all fit and allow room for belt buckles to go through, let alone ones that are safe and comfortable and reasonably priced. -Paul
[2022-06-22 16:33:40] - a: "it's interesting that you wouldn't just get a model 3" Didn't price it out, but it's possible a Model 3 would've been more expensive too with no tax credit. -Paul
[2022-06-22 16:32:45] - a: I like the V2L (can plug devices into the car and use it like a battery). I like the quick charging and the long warranty. I like the HUD. -Paul
[2022-06-22 16:13:58] - paul: "cool features" like? your logic makes sense, of course, it's interesting that you wouldn't just get a model 3, and . . . car seats that fit in a model 3? i've slowly become anti-suv over the years, so it makes me sad that so many people buy SUVs because of car seats of all things. ~a
[2022-06-22 15:53:41] - a: I liked some of the cool features, and it was still eligible for the tax credit, which meant it was cheaper than a model Y and also model Y's were back ordered to like Q3 -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:53:01] - a: Uh, so the Ioniq was consistently one of the best rated compact SUV EVs by a lot of different publications (wanted a slightly larger car so the whole family could fit, car seats and all). It also won world car of the year, whatever that is (https://www.worldcarawards.com/web/) -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:46:24] - a: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/why-is-there-a-new-fee-for-electric-cars-in-virginia/65-a3243f65-2d4b-4cc3-9f6f-76b8335ebb0d I don't know about a special EV fee, but apparently there is one? -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:45:10] - Daniel: "doesn't this make you unhappy?" Yes. I mean, it's tough being both in favor of responsible finances (ie, not spending more than you make) and also wanting smaller government. I want taxes lower AND lower spending. But is lower taxes without lower spending good? I guess not? It's a weird situation where compromise doesn't really work well. -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:43:02] - a: I think the currently proposed, temporary gas tax suspension is a bad idea because it's clearly just a politically motivated and ill-timed short term band-aid solution. In general, you should know I am absolutely for lower an simpler taxes. Getting rid of the gas tax fits that bill. Also, isn't the gas tax probably pretty regressive? -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:42:51] - paul: (i'm not sure about virginia, but) EVs typically get their own special tax. which i'm for. wait, you have an EV. do you have to pay a special tax in virginia? that reminds me i was going to ask you: why did you pick the Hyundai Ioniq? (i'm not questioning you, of course. i just wanted to hear your reasoning). ~a
[2022-06-22 15:42:36] - paul: "already doesn't pay for lots of things with taxes since it keeps spending more than it makes anyway" - doesn't this make you unhappy? Wouldn't getting rid of a tax make that worse? I do agree that EV's will change the situation / require some potential new tax in the future. -Daniel
[2022-06-22 15:40:37] - aDaniel: https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert-away-from-roads/ Money is fungible. Gas taxes don't need to be tied to roads any more than income taxes. Heck, in theory the government already doesn't pay for lots of things with taxes since it keeps spending more than it makes anyway. Also, with the rise of EVs this is going to become a bigger issue in the future either way. -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:40:17] - paul: gas tax suspension is a terrible horrible idea, i agree with . . . you? except you also said you want a permanent revoking of the gas tax? omg, that sounds even worse. ~a
[2022-06-22 15:38:29] - https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/1539282109638090755 This is also an interesting point I am trying to think through, but if the problem right now is supply (which seems to be the case), then lowering prices (by removing the tax) is likely to increase demand. Since supply is struggling to meet demand, that means the end result might just be more earnings for gas companies. -Paul
[2022-06-22 15:37:55] - paul: What pays for roads if we get rid of gas tax? -Daniel
[2022-06-22 15:37:48] - paul: you want income taxes to pay for roads? or you'd prefer to run on a deficit? something else? ~a
[2022-06-22 15:37:20] - oof. ~a
[2022-06-22 15:35:59] - a: I'm for a permanent revoking of the gas tax. My point was that IF you think tariff removal is just a temporary solution (which was not my position, but I believe it was yours), then this would be an even more temporary solution? Plus it has the added bonus of screwing up the deficit worse. Removal of tariffs just seems like a better solution overall. -Paul
[2022-06-22 14:27:04] - mig: no, i don't think it's pedantic at all. you're right of course, it's not a subsidy. the gas tax, though, is supposed to pay for the roads (it doesn't, but it's supposed to). so, if we eliminate the gas tax, we are still subsidizing people not taking public transportation. and people who can afford privately owned cars. and the most inefficient parts of our society (with state and fed income tax). so, i wasn't wrong, either. ~a
[2022-06-22 14:10:54] - mig: dig up, stupid? ~a
[2022-06-22 13:12:35] - I'm on team let them drill, baby, drill to get out of this mess. - mig
[2022-06-22 13:12:21] - anyways, the problem with the gas tax suspension. It'll only be temporary and once it goes away we get hit with sticker shock and there's a danger the markets might overcorrect if demand spikes from the tax suspension, possibly wiping out any potential price savings. - mig
[2022-06-22 13:08:01] - a: maybe a pedantic note, but is letting people keep more of their own money "subsidization"? - mig
[2022-06-22 12:43:37] - paul: on the other hand im surprised you are against a gas tax suspension. according to your logic won't it decrease prices and therefore inflation? you were arguing for removing terrifs to ease inflation, how is this substantially different? ~a
[2022-06-22 12:42:15] - paul: im sure you can guess my opinion on a gas tax suspension. let's subsidize the people not taking public transportation? let's subsidize the people who can afford privatly owned cars? let's subsidize the most inefficient parts of our society? fuck that. ~a
[2022-06-22 12:32:02] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/22/politics/gas-tax-suspension-biden/index.html If removing tariffs are just a one-off solution to the inflation problem, what is a 3 month gas tax suspension? A temporary rollback followed by re-reroll forward that also increases the deficit? -Paul
[2022-06-22 11:03:34] - has the vegas loop overpromised and underdelivered. I guess so? But it seems to be an improvement over the pederstrian experience of getting to point A to point B I think. - mig
[2022-06-22 11:00:46] - and I'm still not sure why CA not having operational high speed rail is a reason to be mad at Musk, let alone how that's his fault. - mig
[2022-06-22 11:00:22] - a: https://www.pcmag.com/news/tunnel-vision-what-its-like-to-ride-in-elon-musks-vegas-loop i dunno, i'm not sure why I need to be mad about the las vegas loop. If there are fire concerns, they must have been addressed, because some fire marshal approved it. And at the end of the day, if it ends up bombing, it looks like the only one losing money is musk. The CA rail system has been sucking money from everyone since it gets federal $. - mi
[2022-06-21 23:28:58] - It doesn't seem like an ideal solution to the problem, but I also think HOV lanes aren't an ideal solution.
-Paul[2022-06-21 23:28:42] - a: Is hyperloop recent? I feel like it's 5+ years old. I guess that's still recent-ish. Anyway, I don't know nearly enough about it. I'm still 10% convinced The Boring Company is a joke. -Paul
[2022-06-21 19:26:32] - mig: do you have a link i can read? i've yet to see even a tiny silver-lining to the vegas convention-center loop. ~a
[2022-06-21 19:24:47] - mig: how so? it's a single tunnel, for a single car, that is full of huge lithium batteries (and/or gasoline), no safe fire-escape when there's a lithium fire. it's an obvious fire hazard. what fire marshal would approve this? even in their convention-center test there were traffic jams! i can only see downsides. putting cars in these things is always going to be at least 10x less efficient than putting a . . . train car in one? ~a
[2022-06-21 19:13:18] - a: from what ive read about the vegas loop it seems like a good idea? - mig
[2022-06-21 14:32:01] - paul: do you like hyperloop? do you think it's a good idea? or the Las Vegas Convention center loop? do you think it's a good idea? i kinda want to short every company of his that isn't tsla or spacex. too bad we can't short privately traded companies?
(i'm on the fence about solar city, but it recently became a subsidiary of tsla). ~a[2022-06-21 12:43:42] - a: Heh, I'm liking Elon Musk more and more every year. I hope he keeps expanding into things that don't involve electric cars or space travel (although as a Tesla shareholder I do worry about him getting spread thin). -Paul
[2022-06-20 17:14:10] - https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-bullet-train-california-problems-20190213-story.html
[2022-06-20 17:08:06] - a: how is it elon's fault that CA high speed rail project has gone nowhere instead of ... california's? - mig
[2022-06-20 16:14:49] - california needs high speed rail so bad. i hate elon musk more and more every year. i really hope he stops spouting bullshit about anything that doesn't have to do with electric cars or space travel. ~a
[2022-06-18 20:10:26] - xpovos: there's also ffmpeg command line, which will literally do what you want (split a video). ~a
[2022-06-18 20:07:21] - for what it's worth, there are a lot of "video splitter" apps. (most of them are for mobile though, because most video editing apps on linux/mac/windows typically have more features than that). ~a
[2022-06-17 21:41:49] - I'll have a look at the ffmpeg libraries, since that does indeed look like a good starting place. I'm not surprised that something already exists that would do what I want, but I couldn't find any. The problems I'm having with the editor could easily be bad editing software--without the ability to buy good ones, e.g. So there's lots of room for other answers. -- Xpovos
[2022-06-17 21:40:09] - a: Considering the amount of money I could legitimately offer on this project would be laughably small, it might even be more offensive to offer the money than to not. Exposure it is!
-- Xpovos[2022-06-17 18:20:26] - yah i guess i just meant to check it out. last time something like this happened to me (motherboard failure), it was someone else's budget (my company, and my budget, but still). ~a
[2022-06-17 18:19:33] - a: It's a Samsung, but the point still stands. I just worry the cost to fix might be more than it's worth. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I'll look into it. -Paul
[2022-06-17 17:23:32] - in that case, i'd send it to google and pay them to fix it. it'll cost you $$$ but for a one year old laptop, i'd probably pay it (depending on what "it" is)? just a thought? i am not a lawyer. ~a
[2022-06-17 16:46:13] - Hence why I am desperately looking for somebody to tell me how I make it all better. Thanks for your help. -Paul
[2022-06-17 16:45:46] - a: Ah, no, I got a new chromebook. This one is 1 year and 2 months old. So almost as bad as you can get considering the warranty is for 1 year.
-Paul[2022-06-17 16:27:07] - it could have been a 1 year old laptop. ~a
[2022-06-17 16:26:59] - paul: "it could've been far worse" yeah, isn't this like a 9-10 year old laptop? ~a
[2022-06-17 16:25:46] - Daniel: Yeah, I'm torn. The shell is pretty gnarly now and I imagine the hinge is going to be problematic going forward. But the screen was somehow not shattered. So I'm super annoyed it got dropped and broken, but it could've been far worse. -Paul
[2022-06-17 16:04:55] - i don't either, sorry. ~a
[2022-06-17 15:42:59] - Everytime I've had a drop bad enough to dent / break the shell the screen has also broken so its not come up for me before. -Daniel
[2022-06-17 14:22:19] - Anybody have any experience fixing a dented laptop? I dropped my beloved chromebook on the ground and the corner of the aluminum shell is all bent (screen appears uncracked, which is a miracle). Seems to be working, even if the joint is a little awkward now. Should I just take some pliers to it and try to bend it back into shape? -Paul
[2022-06-17 14:08:00] - a: Hah, which is why you have to remind me of stock splits all the time.
-Paul[2022-06-17 13:34:47] - xpovos: "it's just the novelty of solving a fairly trivial set of programming challenges, I think" do it for the exposure?
(i'm kidding, of course) ~a[2022-06-17 13:30:34] - paul: well there was less rigor before pvtm. now you're on top of everything. ~a
[2022-06-17 13:29:53] - i was also wondering about codecs. if i were to write a program without ffmpeg, there's no way i'd be able to support more than one codec. ~a
[2022-06-17 13:26:57] - xpovos: i'm pretty sure video editors will not load the whole video into memory. so, if you're having a problem with your video being too big for an editor, you might have a problem with your video being too big for your splitter-program? just a guess though. i'd also suggest ffmpeg: if i were to write a program to do what you suggest there's a 100% chance i'd be using ffmpeg (libraries) under the covers. ~a
[2022-06-17 12:42:11] - are you working with any specific codec or is it a bunch of different ones? - mig
[2022-06-17 12:22:20] - https://ffmpeg.org/ ffmpeg may be able to help you. - mig
[2022-06-17 06:12:28] - Most video codecs make it difficult/impossible to just split the file and have it still work, it's missing header and footer data, etc. I'm not sure what else. Just splitting the file into smaller pieces would be trivial, but feeding those smaller files to an editor requires the editor to be able to parse them as video data. -- Xpovos
[2022-06-17 06:11:33] - Problem 1: I have many very large, very long video files. Editing them with my video editing tools is occasionally impossible because the entire file gets loaded into memory, then the whole computer slows and/or crashes, and any operation takes hours, and is rife with imprecision. I'd like a simple pre-processing tool which split the file into still useable (and that's the catch) smaller files, say 30 minutes long instead of 8 hours.
[2022-06-17 06:09:45] - I have a somewhat odd request. I have a small selection of programming ideas that I would like to create, but not enough skill to actually code them. I don't have a lot of spare money these days but I'd be happy to toss a few bucks at it if a small payout would at all help. Otherwise it's just the novelty of solving a fairly trivial set of programming challenges, I think. -- Xpovos
[2022-06-17 02:28:43] - a: How did I keep you honest? -Paul
[2022-06-16 20:51:25] - back in "those days" we didn't have paul to keep us honest. ~a
[2022-06-16 20:46:01] - I wonder why I didn't pick in 2019. Hmm -Daniel
[2022-06-16 19:44:02] - fuck me vgt has been killing it. vgt beats almost everybody almost every year. ~a
[2022-06-16 19:43:16] - like, there's no way daniel would have put in tmfc and vgt
~a[2022-06-16 19:41:54] - daniel didn't technically enter in 2019. i just meant "the market" ~a
[2022-06-16 19:41:36] - a: Ah, maybe. The format changed a bit for 2019 so I just glossed over it. Was Daniel just VTI? -Paul
[2022-06-16 19:28:24] - paul: yeah! interesting. that is fun to look at. . . . i think you're losing the 2019 challenge even after adding splits? ~a
[2022-06-16 19:08:13] - So that made me feel a little better on a day like today. -Paul
[2022-06-16 19:08:01] - Obviously my portfolio has been devastated over the past year or so. Out of curiosity, I went back to check the old Stock Market Challenge spreadsheets, wondering if it has been so bad that now those old portfolios were losing to Daniel / index funds. I was relieved to find that most (I think all of mine) still are winning. Then I realized that some of them even had unaccounted for stock splits for AMZN and TSLA and were still winning! -Paul
[2022-06-16 18:43:21] - i don't know. ~a
[2022-06-16 17:56:24] - a: I'm kind of offended Japan is attending a North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization meeting.
More seriously, you think this is a bigger downside to sanctions? -Paul[2022-06-16 17:54:42] - I had a rough go with the first shot but mild on the boosters. Also never gotten it that I'm aware of. -Daniel
[2022-06-16 17:36:28] - am i the only one excited by this news? i'd love there to be *actual* downsides to starting a war, and this seems like a downside. for some reason, he didn't seem deterred by a stock market with a cap of 40T rubbles disappearing overnight. ~a
[2022-06-16 17:21:31] - Vaccine experiences are just all over the place. I’ve been fine but some of my coworkers felt bad enough to miss a day or 2 of work. - mig
[2022-06-16 17:19:41] - Michelle and I must have gotten really lucky or we just maybe had it without ever knowing. We’ve tested ourselves a couple times and it was always negative(one time was mandated by my sister as a condition to see our niece.) - mig
[2022-06-16 17:17:29] - paul: Boosters for me and michelle were mostly mild. Both of us got fatigued for a day and that was it. Michelle had a really rough time with her first shot but even then it was only for a night. - mig
[2022-06-16 17:12:01] - a: Yeah, that's definitely a problem. Updated COVID info seems to have dropped off the radar. Hard (for me at least) to find reliable data on things like vaccine efficacy with recent variants. -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:59:33] - the breakthrough-deaths (50%?) is getting really large, but it's still smaller than the percentage of people who have been vaccinated (80%?). i *would* like to see some updated efficacy numbers though. because, that doesn't jive with 95% efficacy, for sure. ~a
[2022-06-16 16:55:10] - paul: "should I be really excited about getting a fourth shot which I think has a good chance of making me feel like crap for at least a day?" if it lessens your symptoms? OR lessens your chance of dying? OR decreases your chance of catching omicron? i'd do it for ANY of those reasons. ~a
[2022-06-16 16:53:47] - a: Right, and I guess that's what I'm struggling with. If my current vaccination status (3 shots) and the current dominant variant (Omicron) means that I could easily catch it anyway AND the symptoms are more like a mild flu.... should I be really excited about getting a fourth shot which I think has a good chance of making me feel like crap for at least a day? Or, should I be eager to get my not yet 2 year old vaccinated? -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:52:23] - i basically felt like sleeping a lot, and had major fatigue and exhaustion. but (basically) zero cough, no fever (or light fever, i never tested my temp). also another interesting thing: the at-home-tests were negative for the first five(ish) days. ~a
[2022-06-16 16:50:24] - based on the numbers i must have had omicron. 99% of united states is omicron. (what i caught was VERY contagious, assuming i got it from the guy in isolation, and my symptoms were very mild compared to the flu, or even a light cold. obv, not life threatening) ~a
[2022-06-16 16:48:00] - a: Uh.... one of my first two shots wasn't too bad. Can't remember which. The first? But the other two were. Not super horrible. I've had worse cases of the flu, but still not enjoyable. -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:47:00] - a: But like you said, it seems like everybody is getting it anyway? All of Gurkie's sisters have had at least one member of their family catch it. Many of our friends have caught it. We seem to be the last people standing. It almost feels inevitable we will catch it, even being boosted. So I guess the lesser symptoms might be nice, but also isn't Omicron much milder too? -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:45:22] - i know a guy who's had a fourth (he's in a special group because of his job). i didn't ask him if he had a bad reaction. ~a
[2022-06-16 16:44:40] - paul: did you feel shit on all three? most anecdotes i heard was that people didn't feel like shit on all three. (i've never had a bad reaction from a vaccine) ~a
[2022-06-16 16:43:41] - a: Flu shot doesn't make me feel nearly as bad. I get a sore arm for a day or two and that's it. COVID boosters are rough. -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:39:59] - paul: but isn't it exactly the same thing then? you get your flu shot every year and it makes you feel less like shit? i mean, i still caught covid and it sucked, but i didn't die. ~a
[2022-06-16 16:38:59] - I'm getting less and less enthusiastic about yearly COVID boosters I guess is what I am saying.
-Paul[2022-06-16 16:38:18] - And I totally get that the flu vaccine is basically the same thing. And I get my flu shot every year. But the flu shot typically doesn't make me feel like utter crap for 36 hours and I selfishly mostly get the flu shot for myself and not to keep others safe. -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:37:28] - a: But, yeah, to your other point about it wearing off quickly.... I guess with all the talk about fourth boosters and break-through cases and how hard it is to find reliable data that the vaccine actually does meaningfully prevent catching and transmission (especially with regards to variants)... I'm just wondering where the line is between vaccine and something lesser. -Paul
[2022-06-16 16:35:52] - nope. ~a
[2022-06-16 16:35:46] - a: Are you sure it was from that person and not from something else? -Paul
[2022-06-16 15:13:06] - i'll tell you guys a fun anecdote. i was at a house with 9 people. one of them had covid (he had had 3-vaccines before he caught it) and we were NOWHERE near him. he was in isolation. no surfaces shared, no airspace shared. of the 8 other (triple-vaccinated) people, 5 of us caught covid! (myself included, ugh). like, wtf there was ZERO resistance to the virus even though we all had been triple-vaccinated and he was total isolation. ~a
[2022-06-16 15:09:29] - paul: "Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective". 2-dose-polio-vaccine < 3-dose-covid-vaccine < 3-dose-polio-vaccine. on the other hand, i think unlike the polio vaccine, the covid vaccine wears off *very* quickly. ~a
[2022-06-16 14:50:35] - Daniel: Yeah, I guess it's the "provide immunity" part that throws me. To me, immunity has meant you can't catch something, but apparently it just means "the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection". -Paul
[2022-06-16 14:20:21] - So I don't think its ever about making it impossible to catch the disease but rather preparing your body to deal with a disease ahead of time. I think the theory is once you vaccinate enough people for a given disease you can essentially wipe it out but I think its always a risk to come back. -Daniel
[2022-06-16 14:19:25] - "a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease."
[2022-06-16 13:57:56] - paul: well i’m guessing thats the trade off made in how fast the vaccine developed. We could get to a 100% immunity vaccine but the time it would take was probably not acceptable. We needed to get to “good enough” asap. - mig
[2022-06-16 13:40:13] - I've been thinking about this partially because of the ongoing development of the vaccine for younger kids (ie, Cora, for me). Kids already seem pretty safe from COVID, so I'm wondering how urgently this is needed. -Paul
[2022-06-16 13:38:37] - The COVID vaccine seems super impressive in terms of how quickly it was developed and how much it seems to reduce the lethality of COVID. But it doesn't seem to do a great job of preventing people from catching it. -Paul
[2022-06-16 13:37:13] - Speaking of verbiage.... how exactly do we define "vaccine" (as opposed to treatment)? Previously, I always thought vaccines made it almost impossible to catch the disease in question and thus spread it (think polio). -Paul
[2022-06-16 13:19:43] - Yeah, I think we're all in the same neighborhood. I would use stronger language in condemning it (misleading, etc), but it sounds like we all agree it's weird and not normal. -Paul
[2022-06-16 12:41:48] - then maybe we're all on the same page. i think paul and i would also not have sent that tweet as worded. ~a
[2022-06-16 00:31:01] - Would I have sent the tweet as worded by Biden? Probably not. -Daniel
[2022-06-16 00:30:09] - Does it seem in line with how politicians just throw out stats that have some study behind them that require you to actually pay attention and dig to figure out the context for what it actually means? Yes. -Daniel
[2022-06-16 00:29:43] - No I would be like thats crazy / weird. Which it is weird and very abnormal that they are counting unrealized gains. Bidens tweet should probably have an asterisk or something on it but I think almost all tweets that contains stats should probably have that. So I think I agree that its weird. Is it misleading? Maaaaaayyyyyyyybeee. -Daniel
[2022-06-16 00:17:58] - Daniel: And if you found out I was doing something crazy like ignoring federal taxes you would just shrug and say, "to each their own"? -Paul
[2022-06-15 21:57:44] - Paul: I would assume your situation was more complicated in some way where an accountant helped you jump through some hoops to have a low tax rate, but I wouldn't know how or why till I asked / found out more details. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 21:29:05] - can't it be both? ~a
[2022-06-15 21:28:11] - Daniel: "I would dispute it have a pretty set meaning" Huh. So if I said my tax rate was 1% last year, you wouldn't think I was a tax cheat or had some amazing accountant, but would just assume I was counting my tax rate differently (like, maybe only counting state taxes paid or sales tax paid or something)? -Paul
[2022-06-15 21:12:56] - paul: I take the point that 'tax rate' does not normally accoutn for unrealized stock gains but I would dispute it have a pretty set meaning. I think the amount of crap that determines someones tax rate is large and varies and is in no way set (except by the tax code which is huge / bonkers). -Daniel
[2022-06-15 21:09:18] - and I am going to withhold judgement until I see where they take the party. Mostly, I just wish these two groups could coexist and not let disagreement over 2 issues (and theoretical disagreements on "woke-ness") split them apart. -Paul
[2022-06-15 21:08:09] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsgFdPqOAhk This is the video that distracted me. I don't suspect anybody but maybe Miguel will find it interesting, but I think it was really well done. I'm worried about the Mises Caucus takeover of the LP, and anticipate being embarrassed by some of their future stunts, but I do think they raise some good points about missteps by the past leadership... -Paul
[2022-06-15 21:07:42] - hah, yeah. if they're changing the denominator to make a "point", why not also change the numerator?
~a[2022-06-15 21:06:45] - Daniel: I agree that they cleverly left out the word "income" to make it less wrong, but I still think it's pretty misleading. "Tax rate" has a pretty set meaning, and while it isn't all income, it's definitely not unrealized stock gains either. I would assume "tax rate" referred to our current tax system and not some made-up one that somebody wishes we taxed people on. -Paul
[2022-06-15 21:02:06] - Lies, damn lies, and statistics. You always have to figure out what any statistic means. So in that regard yes I agree but also I don't think its paricularly stands out to me in the world of stats used by politicians. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 21:00:58] - I guess I wouldn't assume it was strictly referring to tax on their income. With all super rich people I think taxes get all sorts of weird with deductions and exemptions and carry over's and who knows what else so I would assume there is a lot going on there. I wouldn't have assumed unrealized gains either at first but I also wouldn't have assumed anything simple either. -Daniel
[2022-06-15 21:00:29] - a: My income this year is horribly negative if that's the case.
-Paulprev <-> next