prev <-> next
[2023-05-01 14:19:34] - paul: what about it is worse? ~a
[2023-05-01 14:19:09] - Random aside: but how long would you suspect it would take to get used to a mechanical keyboard? I used to have like a crappy Dell one which worked fine, then decided to upgrade to a fancy mechanical one because I heard it was better, but my typing has been a lot worse ever since. -Paul
[2023-05-01 14:18:06] - paul: "maybe paying for a premium subscription ... is JUST paying for enhanced functionality and not some political statement" to do this don't you have to ignore who's receiving the payment? who's running the company? what the company represents? ~a
[2023-05-01 14:17:19] - paul: but when you brought up your example on masks, i expressed that there were non-political reasons to mask. there was a contagious virus that was spread more easily between people who weren't wearing masks. ~a
[2023-05-01 14:16:39] - Like, maybe paying for a premium subscription (which is super common in our new subscriber culture) is JUST paying for enhanced functionality and not some political statement? -Paul
[2023-05-01 14:15:33] - a: "how is this any different?" It's.... not at all the same? This isn't proclaiming disdain for a person based on them doing shitty things. This is being obsessed with a tiny blue badge because you are worried people might assume you support somebody. Again, I go back to masking and being worried that people assume your political tribe based on it. -Paul
[2023-05-01 14:12:42] - Hard to believe being thought of as anti-Disney could help a politician, but he seems to be sticking to it so maybe he sees some poll numbers we don't? -Paul
[2023-05-01 14:10:29] - a: I was shocked by Tucker getting let go. Cable news has an audience problem and he draws eyeballs. Feels like there is more to the story. Interested in seeing where he goes. Hopefully this expedites the collapse of mainstream news outlets. -Paul
[2023-05-01 14:10:24] - paul: i think the same goes for "virtue signaling" ~a
[2023-05-01 14:09:56] - paul: it's only "culture war crap" when they are opinions you disagree with. ~a
[2023-05-01 14:08:46] - paul: your examples need a lot of tweaking to be consistent with the elon example. "These people just seem totally consumed by culture war crap" this conclusion only works if you assume hating elon is only done to signal virtuousness. do you proclaim your disdain for politicians that do shitty things? of course you do. how is this any different? ~a
[2023-05-01 14:00:02] - a: "do you blame them" Kinda, yeah. It seems like the height of virtue signaling. I don't go on twitter to loudly announce that I only paid my taxes under threat of jail because I don't want people to assume I am pro-Biden. Or Insist that I only stayed at a Marriott because it was the only hotel that had availability and I am not Mormon. These people just seem totally consumed by culture war crap. -Paul
[2023-04-29 13:32:57] - a: I am also a fan of Technology Connections. Brown blew my mind. And he frequently makes me laugh out loud, in that way that I know most people around me would not be anywhere near as amused by the joke. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-28 22:12:39] - a: Yup thats the guy. I like most of his stuff but occassionally something is to dry even given thats generally his schtick. I did like the dishwasher video though. It made me think about my gas stove. I haven't really seen / tried an induction stove but I'd look at one more seriously in the future now. -Daniel
[2023-04-28 20:18:02] - was it technology connections?!?! i fucking love that guy. his video on THE COLOR BROWN? or the one on DISHWASHERS? i'm a fan of that guy. his EV video was great too. i need to watch more of his stuff omg. ~a
[2023-04-28 20:13:16] - I watched a whole like twenty minute video on heat pumps. Andrea made fun of me for it
-Daniel[2023-04-28 15:14:57] - i mean, the whole point of Boaty McBoatface was the pure uselessness of the name. ~a
[2023-04-28 15:14:18] - Heaty McPumpface. wouldn't it be Heaty McHeatface? ~a
[2023-04-26 21:24:15] - yeah, i agree, and it's why i mentioned "neutral" in both. yes, it could backfire, but i doubt it. ~a
[2023-04-26 20:33:10] - a: Maybe if it ends up in the SC somehow and the SC goes in favor of Disney that would be bad for him. -Daniel
[2023-04-26 20:32:30] - a: I was trying to think, even if he loses is it bad? Or does it just show how much harder R's need to fight against 'woke' companies etc? -Daniel
[2023-04-26 20:20:17] - daniel: depends on how the lawsuit turns out? if he wins, probably neutral or good for him, if he loses, probably neutral or bad for him. ~a
[2023-04-26 20:14:09] - Being sued by Disney - good or bad for DeSantis presidential bid? -Daniel
[2023-04-24 18:11:25] - well it is the most watched us cable news show of all time? seems like the end of an era. probably millions of magas are losing their shit (for two reasons). ~a
[2023-04-24 17:18:17] - a: it’s shocking for sure. I can’t say I care too much personally. I thought it was interesting both Tucker and Don Lemon’s departure from CNN broke almost at the same time. - mig
[2023-04-24 16:26:37] - pau/mig: thoughts? i wondered what fox was going to do about this. ~a
[2023-04-24 13:23:05] - paul: according to julie melner, julie melner is not a real person. yes, that is the person behind the account. i'm not sure it's a "parody account", but i am sure the author implies they weren't being serious. ~a
[2023-04-24 13:21:52] - paul: i think anything, no matter how trivial, can get politicized. unlike masking, though, people are not literally dying. people don't want there to be implication that they are pro-elon: do you blame them? ~a
[2023-04-24 12:42:07] - a: Is Julie Melner the person behind that twitter account? Is it a parody account? -Paul
[2023-04-24 12:41:17] - I saw a tweet talking about how the whole blue checkmark thing has seemingly become bizarrely political like masking was during COVID and that analogy rings true for me. -Paul
[2023-04-24 12:40:13] - Like, holy crap, when did we all get so judgmental about how people spend $8 a month? -Paul
[2023-04-24 12:39:12] - And I'm seeing a bunch of people defensively talk about how they paid for awhile ago and only use it for some of the specific additional functionality and swearing they wouldn't pay for it otherwise. -Paul
[2023-04-24 12:38:20] - https://twitter.com/MIT/status/1649963039184113666 I mean, it's gotten to the point where theoretically serious institutions feel the need to, unprompted, tell the world they aren't paying for Twitter blue. -Paul
[2023-04-21 20:48:55] - mig: julie melner is not a real person, no it is not serious. ~a
[2023-04-21 20:39:35] - paul: https://twitter.com/UsingCigarettes/status/1649142768365629462?s=20 can’t tell if this one is serious, but ummmm…. - mig
[2023-04-21 20:36:05] - a: regardless of the % if you’re claiming the funding is essential it means you are pretty reliant on it. You can’t have this both ways. - mig
[2023-04-21 15:40:44] - But the thing in question is ultimately a meaningless status badge. If Musk wasn't the initiator and journalists weren't the main target, I feel like this would be presented as a bunch of crybabies whining about losing their precious gold star. -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:39:25] - https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1649349537520074756 But back to the blue checkmark stuff, people seem to be losing their shit on both sides (ie, losing it is the end of the world or having it is a sign of shame). It's so weird to me. Almost every other social network has some sort of paid tier. I understand maybe a tiny bit of annoyance since twitter is turning something previously free into something paid for... -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:38:15] - a: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/#:~:text=About%2026.1%20million%20average%20weekly,data%20provided%20by%20the%20organizati Those numbers seem in conflict. One seems to imply ~400 million monthly active users while the other is saying they have < 400 million total users (active or not)? You can say their pull is small, but it looks to be ~10x what NPR has in terms of weekly listenership. -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:34:47] - a: I would describe it as potentially useful information, regardless of if the politician is trying their hardest to be independent or not. -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:34:23] - a: "would you *top-down* *force* a "state funded" badge on the page for a group that is trying their hardest to present themselves as having editorial independence from said state?" That's a really bizarrely loaded question. A simple label from a social network is hardly top-down forcing anything. How would you describe CNN chyrons describing donors to a politician? -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:32:21] - a: Ah, I went too strong the other way. -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:31:47] - a: "what is your guess as to what percentage npr gets from the government?" I have a bit of an unfair advantage because I've already heard that the government funding of NPR is really small. I'll guess.... under 1%? -Paul
[2023-04-21 15:05:16] - paul: "Is there any evidence of that?" sure. i'm not sure who made this estimate, but their pull wasn't that high to begin with. ~a
[2023-04-21 15:01:54] - paul: now with that answer, would you *top-down* *force* a "state funded" badge on the page for a group that is trying their hardest to present themselves as having editorial independence from said state? ~a
[2023-04-21 15:00:18] - paul: "npr receives government funding": sure, it's essential as they say, but without looking it up, what is your guess as to what percentage npr gets from the government? here's the answer after you've made a guess. ~a
[2023-04-21 13:14:55] - a: "everyone is leaving twitter" Is there any evidence of that? Everybody keeps on saying they're going to leave twitter or it's going to fail tomorrow or whatever but it seems pretty much unchanged to me. I think ScotusBlog is the first account I follow which seems to be leaving. -Paul
[2023-04-21 13:13:41] - a: "i don't see a problem either" The problem is the increasing siloing of everything. Each political side has their own social network and their own news network and their own YouTube and everything else. Doesn't seem healthy for a society. Also, during a time when lots of media are having layoffs, one would think NPR would like to try to increase their reach instead of reduce it? -Paul
[2023-04-21 13:09:31] - a: "i think that's an oversimplification? the badge is not the problem" They literally said the tipping point was the badge. I think for NPR they changed the label from "state affiliated" to "state funded" right? Added more nuance to address concerns? -Paul
[2023-04-21 04:03:22] - "they decided to change it" ok, and npr decided to leave because twitter decided to changed it. i don't see a problem either. everyone is leaving twitter, and nothing of value is lost. ~a
[2023-04-20 21:48:29] - a: sure that was twitter’s original definition. They decided to change it, and I don’t see a problem because the labels are still true. NPR receives government funding, which NPR itself says is “essential” to its operations. NPR just seems overly sensitive to people pointing that true statement out. - mig
[2023-04-20 20:46:09] - paul: "Leaving over not getting some seemingly useless badge" i think that's an oversimplification? the badge is not the problem. twitter labeled npr as "Government-funded Media" on their main page even though they had earlier said "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy" ~a
[2023-04-20 20:41:38] - paul: "if he's innocent of this (humor me here), but guilty of other stuff.... should he be found guilty of this or not?" he should not. sorry they are hard to square. i thought i was being clear when i explicitly said the other thing. ~a
[2023-04-20 19:42:54] - https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1649133133176946688 I don't get this. Leaving over not getting some seemingly useless badge? "concerns about Twitter’s direction"? Oof, this is a pretty big blow in my mind of their objectivity. -Paul
[2023-04-20 19:38:01] - a: "not with a large amount, no. you are limited to 10k purchases per year." Heh, we're not all Richie Rich here. I only have $10k in iBonds now and never seriously considered putting more in, even though we're getting a sizeable tax refund this year that we could've used to buy more. I'm fine with a $10k restriction. -Paul
[2023-04-20 19:36:53] - a: Because one statement implies you think he should, but the other outright claims you think he shouldn't. -Paul
[2023-04-20 19:36:33] - a: "i DON'T want him to be punished for a crime he didn't commit" I guess it's hard for me to square this with: "i take an opposite approach. instead i don't care about each case individually: as long as he does the time for 1/100th of his crimes". Like, if he's innocent of this (humor me here), but guilty of other stuff.... should he be found guilty of this or not? -Paul
[2023-04-20 18:54:33] - a: I wonder if it's supposed to be some kind commentary on Democrats aborting themselves away... -Paul
[2023-04-20 18:54:04] - a: I saw that from Coulter last night. I don't get it? I mean, in some ways it's libertarian-ish in that people should be free to choose their own restrictions but I think the big opposition to abortion is the idea that it is (in their opinion) killing an innocent life with no choice in the matter. -Paul
[2023-04-20 18:52:48] - paul: "if inflation goes back up can't I just jump back in to take advantage?" not with a large amount, no. you are limited to 10k purchases per year. (also you're punished in other ways for going into and out of ibonds repeatedly) ~a
[2023-04-20 18:51:36] - paul: "it was business fraud, and people were harmed" ~a
[2023-04-20 18:49:58] - paul: "So instead of judging guilt or innocence based on charges, you judge guilt or innocence based on the person?" what? no, of course not. i was pretty explicit. "i DON'T want him to be punished for a crime he didn't commit" ~a
[2023-04-20 17:42:20] - a: Lots of people think Trump is guilty, but we've had a bunch of trials (impeachments and investigations) into Trump and the amount of guilt turned up has been..... unimpressive so far. I guess I'm old fashioned and believe in the ole innocent until proven guilty? -Paul
[2023-04-20 17:41:01] - a: So instead of judging guilt or innocence based on charges, you judge guilt or innocence based on the person? How do you know if your judgement of the person is right, though? Nobody would've thought Bill Cosby was a monster until we had accusations and trials to establish guilt. -Paul
[2023-04-20 17:37:31] - a: "the date when the rate changes for your bond is every 6 months from the issue date of your bond" Okay, so if I bought in December of 2021, then my new lower rate should kick in... May 2023? I get the it probably seems like market timing, but if inflation goes back up can't I just jump back in to take advantage? iBonds are lagging in that way. -Paul
[2023-04-20 17:20:39] - xpovos/paul/etc: what do you think about this? obviously she's being inflammatory for the purposes of being inflammatory, but in the eyes of some, a move like this would be a perfect middle-ground. we'll probably have to ignore enforcement, for the purposes of this discussion. i.e. obviously enforcement would be a non-starter. ~a
[2023-04-20 14:41:50] - daniel: this made me think of you. someone's flair on fuckcars is "I found fuckcars on r/place" ~a
[2023-04-19 14:27:43] - paul: "having bars near parks" this seems like a bad simplification of the video though i agree its how the video ends, i'd focus on the "overcoming inertia vs no planning required" or "exclusionary zoning". i'm glad we agree on the overall issue. ~a
[2023-04-19 14:09:29] - paul: that being said i DON'T want him to be punished for a crime he didn't commit. but i also don't think that's the case here either. ~a
[2023-04-19 14:09:09] - paul: "I don't know why we can't judge each on their merits" i take an opposite approach. instead i don't care about each case individually: as long as he does the time for 1/100th of his crimes, i think it's better for society than him getting off with zero punishment for all of his brazen crimes. the ratio of punishment for crimes for regular people versus rich people can't be infinite, or society will start to break down. ~a
[2023-04-19 14:05:07] - paul: "Why would mine still be returning 7%" meh, it's super confusing, i don't blame you for being confused. your rate takes effect at weird times: "Although we announce the new rates in May and November, the date when the rate changes for your bond is every 6 months from the issue date of your bond". so basically, if you have a whole bunch of buy-dates like i do, rate changes will happen stochastically throughout the year. ~a
[2023-04-19 13:30:18] - a: Including stuff that he might just be innocent of (or at least not guilty) and that can fuel the perception of witch-hunts. -Paul
[2023-04-19 13:27:21] - a: "i'd definitely had to pick that the georgia case and the federal cases would go through instead, but i don't get to choose" Aren't those cases going ahead regardless of the outcome of this one? I don't know why we can't judge each on their merits. I think there has been this problem with Trump where because so many people think he is evil for so many reasons, they go after him for everything. -Paul
[2023-04-19 13:15:46] - a: "please don't count me in that list" Okay, what were the dozens of laws that were brazenly broken? Again, I haven't followed this super closely, but most commentary I have heard even from the left implies that it's a stretch to say he even broke one law with this one. That's why I say it's the opposite. -Paul
[2023-04-19 13:12:59] - a: "your current ibonds will continue to get the previous ~7% rate" Okay, so maybe I don't understand how iBonds work? I though the rates adjusted every 6 months to the current inflation rate. Why would mine still be returning 7%? -Paul
[2023-04-19 13:12:04] - a: I watched the video. Sorry, my statement was confusing. I hadn't seen it before you linked to it, but I watched it once you did. I don't know if I see the big appeal of.... having bars near parks? But I for sure think people should be allowed to do it if they want. -Paul
[2023-04-18 23:23:31] - If it bothers NPR that much that people truthfully state that they receive government funding, they can elect to not accept that government funding. - mig
[2023-04-18 23:20:42] - I think it's fair game to note that NPR is publicly funded, even if that funding is relatively small, regardless of how much merit their claim of editorial independence has. We'd expect disclosures from journalists when they cover topics with somewhat similar financial ties, I don't see why NPR shouldn't be held to that as well. - mig
[2023-04-18 23:14:23] - a: re - twitter/npr I think twitter was initially incorrect in its labelling of NPR but I think NPR is being misleading about how much federal funding it receives. You can't try to have it both ways and say "oh we only get a mere pittance in government funds" and then claim that funding is essential to your operations. - mig
[2023-04-18 21:29:38] - paul: if i had to choose, i'd definitely had to pick that the georgia case and the federal cases would go through instead, but i don't get to choose. ~a
[2023-04-18 21:28:51] - paul: yes, i agree georgia was worse. yes, i also think the many federal cases are worse. ~a
[2023-04-18 21:28:18] - paul: "I think pretty much everybody agrees that is like the opposite of what this indictment is, right?" please don't count me in that list. you wanna say nobody was harmed, so no harm no foul? but people were harmed. it was business fraud, and people were harmed. "brazenly and without reservation break dozens of laws the whole term" is not the opposite of this indictment imo. ~a
[2023-04-18 21:13:47] - you are reminding me though, that i should make sure to buy more ibonds. now that it's 2023 and my 10k limit was reset. ~a
[2023-04-18 21:12:37] - paul: once you sell your ibonds, you can't just rebuy them because you're limited to 10k/year. also it feels very "timing the market" to me. you want to sell because you think the rates are going down, but i say the rates are going down because inflation is going down: once that changes the rates will go back up. ~a
[2023-04-18 21:11:29] - paul: never. sell. ibonds. that's my recommendation. i base this recommendation on some realistic data too: ibonds are inflation protected. yes, the combined ibond rate will be ~3% starting in may, but that's only for *new* ibonds purchased. your current ibonds will continue to get the previous ~7% rate, and if the inflation rates go back up, so will your bond rates. ~a
[2023-04-18 21:11:21] - paul: see the video. it's like 30 seconds long, and it's really made me think about moving to a place with more relaxed zoning. "i'm all for more relaxed zoning", ok then we're on the same page. ~a
[2023-04-18 18:19:22] - iBonds question: So with the upcoming composite rate being lower: if I don't want to bother with that rate for my iBond purchased in Dec 2021, I should consider selling around October of 2023? That way the most recent 3 months of forfeited interest will be the lower rate? -Paul
[2023-04-18 18:17:34] - a: Ah, okay. I guess I don't consider exclusionary zoning to be that related to being social? I'm trying to think if I would interact with people more if there were retail and commercial stuff mixed in with residential areas. I didn't see that video, but I'm all for more relaxed zoning. -Paul
[2023-04-18 17:52:14] - paul: "Is the implication that they are too far apart" no. exclusionary zoning has more to do with making it illegal to provide mixed-use than it has to do with density. i watched this video recently (if you're on twitter, you maybe saw this) and it really opened my eyes to where we could be if our laws didn't make so many *sweet* things straight up *illegal*. ~a
[2023-04-18 11:03:08] - I expected more from the charges once they were unsealed. It looks like Bragg was going to discard these but caved to political pressure and pushed them through the grand jury to appease his voters. I think this will be a very hard conviction to get. — Xpovos
[2023-04-17 22:57:50] - a: Even Trump haters aren't sure he broke one law here, let alone dozens. I agree there might be (and probably is) other things you SHOULD charge him for (George vote tampering?), but not this. -Paul
[2023-04-17 22:56:57] - a: "if they brazenly and without reservation break dozens of laws the whole term, yes. definitely yes" Except I think pretty much everybody agrees that is like the opposite of what this indictment is, right? -Paul
[2023-04-17 22:56:17] - a: And hiding the affair isn't the illegal thing he did. It's the weird combination of paying hush money and... counting it as some sort of campaign contribution? So I guess tax payers were collectively cheated out of a millionth of a cent each in tax revenue or something? -Paul
[2023-04-17 22:51:32] - a: Yeah. I feel like whole list of "people who were harmed" is a bit of a stretch considering you are basing it all off the idea that hiding the affair helped Trump win primaries and elections. -Paul
[2023-04-17 22:45:20] - title: I'm not sure I get it. Maybe it's because my sense of scale is screwed up looking at the picture. Those houses look pretty packed together to me. Is the implication that they are too far apart? -Paul
[2023-04-13 19:21:27] - mig: "the government" you seem to be calling them "the government" because you know that new york != north carolina? like, different laws are being broken. different details too, because i'm not sure "business fraud" was the situation with edwards at all, right? i get that if it gets to the supreme court, they'll probably argue that textbook business fraud is freedom of speech or something. shrug. ~a
[2023-04-13 17:27:04] - And bears repeating, the DoJ and FEC considered pursuing this and passed on doing so. So the its arguable that the crime Bragg is trying to tie Trump’s business records falsification to does not exist. - mig
[2023-04-13 17:25:09] - a: the Edwards case is relevant because the government alleged that paying off a mistress to hide an affair was a violation of election law. The jury didn’t agree and I find it hard Bragg can make that case more convincingly. - mig
[2023-04-13 00:39:29] - paul: "is this just a new standard going forward?" 1. it's not a new standard. 2. no. backward was always fine. ~a
[2023-04-13 00:20:25] - paul: "Do we really want to add to that the idea that the loser is likely to get arrested and thrown in jail by the opposition party?" if they brazenly and without reservation break dozens of laws the whole term, yes. definitely yes. ~a
[2023-04-13 00:16:01] - paul: honestly, it's a bit of a stretch, but all of the tax payers: the hush money was probably a tax deduction so he probably didn't pay taxes on it. ~a
[2023-04-13 00:15:30] - paul: "Who was harmed?" hillary clinton, all of the american people who voted in the 2016 national election. everybody that was affected by a decision made by the executive branch between 2017-2021. anyone who's been affected by any of the supreme court decisions since april 2017 when gorsuch was confirmed. i'd say all of these people but it the fraud happened after the primaries. ~a
[2023-04-12 23:46:31] - a: People already get way too emotionally riled up over elections because of how much power the president has. Do we really want to add to that the idea that the loser is likely to get arrested and thrown in jail by the opposition party? -Paul
[2023-04-12 23:45:44] - a: Is there a president in our lifetimes who hasn't done something at least that illegal? Almost certainly not. Shall we go back and arrest all of them? Or is this just a new standard going forward? -Paul
[2023-04-12 23:42:43] - a: Like, who was the victim here? Who was harmed? What was the actual crime? That he didn't properly classify his hush money payments and that runs afoul of campaign finance rules somehow? -Paul
[2023-04-12 23:39:40] - a: Sure, intent is important, but not as important as the seriousness of the crime. I mean, Obama intended to smoke marijuana. Clinton intended to pay off Paula Jones. I still consider both to be not the most serious of offenses. -Paul
[2023-04-12 19:00:03] - mig: "central question" so as long as at the core i'm doing something benign it doesn't matter who's killed and who's wounded after that benign act?! regardless paying off someone to hide it from an election is strictly illegal. the john edwards case ended up without a conviction . . . and? ~a
[2023-04-12 18:38:28] - a: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the central question is was paying off Daniels some sort of crime. Bragg’s whole case hinges on the answer being yes and I’m not so sure it is. Certainly with the case with John Edwards the answer seems to be trending … no. - mig
[2023-04-12 16:37:57] - mig: weren't you saying that all the people leaving twitter was a good thing *for* twitter, because all the idiots are leaving? or something like that? do you still feel that way? as biased as NPR is, i feel like much of their reporting is valuable information for people who consume information on twitter. ~a
[2023-04-12 14:17:47] - paul: or if trump (for example) was on tape saying "if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public" it would be a bit more obvious he's trying to falsify business records to cover up election crimes? intent matters: if your election crimes are unrelated to your false business records, it's somewhat less illegal. ~a
[2023-04-11 15:11:06] - paul: "how obvious that the person is guilty" i was more focusing on intent than obviousness of guilt. intent matters, i think. for example if somebody dies on the street, and i was involved, it's relevant on whether i intended for them to die or not, right? ~a
[2023-04-11 14:10:47] - daniel: i'd prefer tomorrow. thanks! ~a
[2023-04-11 14:09:04] - a: care about today / tomorrow for SC2? -Daniel
[2023-04-11 13:59:14] - a: I don't care about paper trails or how obvious that the person is guilty. I'm sure if people looked hard enough they could find evidence that any American has committed multiple crimes (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279295536&sr=8-1). We could throw all politicians in jail (which is tempting, don't get me wrong). -Paul
[2023-04-11 13:56:09] - a: "you keep trying to change back to "it was about something so minor"" I keep changing it back to that because that's the primary reason I think this is super questionable. Yes, hold politicians accountable for big things like murder or pressuring people into creating fraudulent votes for an election or other stuff. But for smoking marijuana or hush money to cover up affairs with Stormy Daniels or Paula Jones? Weak sauce. -Paul
[2023-04-11 13:53:18] - a
[2023-04-11 12:37:47] - if obama had lied to congress about his marijuana use, or had hush money payments to cover it up along with fraudulent business records? if there were voice recordings and a paper trail that the cover-up was to keep the marijuana information out of an election? sure. ~a
[2023-04-11 11:52:05] - you keep trying to change back to "it was about something so minor". no the law mostly doesn't care who you had sex with. it cares about lying to congress. it cares about blatantly lying on your business records: that's textbook fraud. and doing it as a coverup for an election? such ticky tacky. ~a
[2023-04-11 04:50:21] - a: That we could charge every president with (maybe not Jimmy Carter). -Paul
[2023-04-11 04:50:03] - a: For the record, I was also more supportive of impeachment of Clinton because of the lying, but the fact that it was about something so minor... I mean, couldn't we easily charge Obama for marijuana use considering he pretty much admitted to it? People still go on about how GWB is/was a war criminal. I'm pretty sure we can find something as serious as hush money to a porn star... -Paul
[2023-04-10 20:15:32] - paul: i'm 100% on-board with the prosecution of lying to congress. it's a crime and a noteworthy one. ~a
[2023-04-10 20:05:54] - a: Was no big deal and Republicans said nobody is above the law. We had the stained dress and recorded phone calls for Clinton. But it's not whether the crime was obvious, it's whether it's even a crime (or a noteworthy one). -Paul
[2023-04-10 20:04:18] - a: Is hush money even a federal crime? As I understand it, it's only illegal in this instance because it got mixed up as campaign contributions or something. But either way, no, I am not overly impressed by the legal wrongness of Trump paying hush money to somebody he had an affair with. In some ways, the roles seem reversed from the Clinton days when Democrats said lying about sex with an intern... -Paul
[2023-04-10 20:02:21] - a: I'm not an expert on these legal matters, but everything I read (including from liberal sources) point out that this case is a bit of a stretch and, like Miguel said, often references "novel legal theory". The wikipedia article quotes the NYT as saying it too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_of_Donald_Trump#Commentary_and_media_analysis). -Paul
[2023-04-10 19:05:07] - paul: if you think "we have audio recordings and a paper trail of you deciding to blatantly lie about hush money payments on business records" is "tickiest tackiest things", i'm not quite sure we * should * ignore "tickiest tackiest things". ~a
[2023-04-10 18:53:03] - Daniel: Sure, and if we're talking about Al Capone that's probably fine. But doing that to the most prominent politician of the opposing political party.... That just opens the floodgates to going after Biden and his entire family for the tickiest tackiest things possible after this. -Paul
[2023-04-10 18:24:45] - https://www.businessinsider.com/john-edwards-last-presidential-candidate-charged-with-campaign-finance-violations-2023-3?amp precedent on these type of things doesn’t seem favorable to Bragg. - mig
[2023-04-10 18:23:35] - daniel: i think the issue with Trump is it’s questionable that the Stormy Daniels thing is a crime to begin with? Like I said earlier the phrase “novel legal theory” comes up frequently when this is talked about in articles. - mig
[2023-04-10 16:40:00] - I think Trump might be like Al Capone in that everyone is pretty sure he's done bad things but this payment to Stormy Daniels is where there is a paper trail and can be proven. /shrug Like Capone for tax evasion instead of all the other felonies everyone is pretty sure he was responsible for. -Daniel
[2023-04-09 23:17:34] - a: And all the coverage I saw was basically: "Youngkin claims to be a moderate but look at his Handmaiden's Tale style law that he is proposing to turn women into sexual slaves!" -Paul
[2023-04-09 23:16:45] - a: Re: Ann Coulter. I remember a few months ago Youngkin was suggesting something like a 15 week abortion ban (which I think we actually agreed might be a reasonable state level restriction that takes into account voter preferences). -Paul
[2023-04-09 23:14:23] - a: But having all these super publicized and in-depth investigations and coming up with.... obstruction of justice from some associates and now these questionable campaign finance violations are super weak-sauce. -Paul
[2023-04-09 23:13:26] - a: And I'm totally on board about his actions around withholding arms from Ukraine until they dug up stuff on Biden and trying to force the Georgia officials to create fraudulent results are horrible... -Paul
[2023-04-09 23:12:22] - a: Like, I actually think all of these investigations are starting to make the non-Trump sides look a little bad. For years and years I assumed Trump was super corrupt and borderline criminal (and still mostly assume that). -Paul
[2023-04-09 23:11:22] - a: "can i reverse this?" Sure, I think that works fine. "i feel like trump has broken dozens of crimes that typically would get the average joe in trouble" I don't disagree, but that's not what they charging him with here. -Paul
[2023-04-07 20:54:23] - huh. this tweet from ann coulter is interesting. it's not often i see a republican say: hey, lets be less crazy about abortion. but, there you go. ~a
[2023-04-07 20:38:42] - mig: many "lying on business" records are felonies. afaik, if you have other crimes that are tied to your lie, it's a felony. i'm not sure this upgrade is as unexpected as you suggest: one of the first links from google, written before trump was indicted. ~a
[2023-04-07 20:32:21] - a: lying on business records would get you in trouble but more likely in civil court since its a misdemeanor. Bragg upgraded those charges to a criminal felony using a weird legal theory no one is quite sure is sound, which I have a high degree of confidence he wouldn’t do for a regular joe. - mig
[2023-04-07 20:08:23] - paul: yah, as xpovos mentioned the curve thing is an eliptic curve (EC). it's what is used to go from a bitcoin private key to a public key. (nitty gritty details: the bitcoin public key is then *hashed* to get a "bitcoin address". which is why the first time you spend money from an address, is the first time the world even has access to your *public* EC key. cracking an EC key first requires someone to spend money from an address) ~a
[2023-04-07 20:04:36] - paul: can i reverse this? can i say "if you *would* go after an average Joe for this crime, maybe *do* go after a prominent politician for it???" because, i feel like trump has broken dozens of crimes that typically would get the average joe in trouble: lying on business records (ny) fucking around with classified documents (fed) and pressuring officials to break laws (ga) would get the average joe in fucktons of trouble. ~a
[2023-04-07 19:56:57] - a: I think I get two of those four memes for bitcoin. The rocks and the newspaper. -Paul
[2023-04-07 19:53:14] - a: As a general rule, if you wouldn't go after an average Joe for this crime, maybe don't go after a prominent political rival for it. -Paul
[2023-04-07 19:52:30] - a: "what is your solution?" I don't have an easy one. It's a messy situation with non-ideal solutions. I would say to generally be reluctant to charge prominent politicians instead of being eager... -Paul
[2023-04-07 19:50:00] - a: Sure, I know it's not the Biden admin, and a theoretically non-partisan grand jury is involved, but Bragg pretty clearly is running the show and seems to be pretty clearly targeting Trump. -Paul
[2023-04-07 15:58:57] - a: Sec+ (SY0-601) -- Xpovos
[2023-04-07 15:11:39] - which cert? ~a
[2023-04-07 15:11:32] - xpovos: ah, yes! i did notice that elliptic curve has been used for (non-bitcoin) encryption. that's cool. ~a
[2023-04-07 15:07:08] - a: I've been studying elliptic curve cryptography for a certification. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-07 14:38:21] - why is #2 coincidentally timed? is #2 the eliptic curve? chancellor on the brink of second bailout was january 3rd i think? i did notice that satoshi's birthday was april 5th (claimed). ~a
[2023-04-07 14:36:16] - xpovos: 1 is something bitcoin people talk about sometimes, it's a currency used on islands in the pacific ocean (micronesia). the currency was made out of large stones where you didn't need to bear the currency to have ownership of it. the community would remember who had ownership of each stone. a "shared ledger" of sorts. sometimes the stones were even unavailable (literally under water, i think?), and ownership was still respected. ~a
[2023-04-06 21:47:22] - #2 is nicely coincidentally timed… — Xpovos
[2023-04-06 21:46:35] - a: I personally only get #2, and #3. — Xpovos
[2023-04-06 17:38:51] - paul: i don't usually follow /r/bitcoin, but i really liked this meme post. i honestly didn't know who the dude was in the bottom right, but apparently it is hal finney. do these other three images evoke any sort of response? ~a
[2023-04-06 17:14:52] - clarence thomas has accepted undisclosed luxury trips from gop megadonor for decades. jfc, i have to wonder why it was undisclosed. the only reason i could imagine someone wouldn't disclose it is if they were trying to hide it, but maybe not? it's a very large amount of money ($0.5m in one year?). ~a
[2023-04-06 14:53:09] - mig: no? 1. many states have extra car taxes for EVs and hybrids. my sister lives in new jersey and pays a road fee. virginia is on that list too: "annual highway fee of $116.49 or a per-mile road use fee" paul, do you pay the flat fee or per-mile? 2. fourth power law means that even if they didn't pay anything, a vehicle that's four times as heavy does 256x more damage. 1/256 = 0.4% of the taxes kinda gets lost a bit in the noise. ~a
[2023-04-06 14:46:59] - xpovos: ah ok. ~a
[2023-04-06 12:49:43] - a: Max’s area of expertise, though, is marketing. That’s a major theme in his writing, so it’s not surprising on that front. — Xpovos
[2023-04-06 11:46:15] - a: I would think hybrids/evs would be the bigger offenders. - mig
[2023-04-06 04:16:32] - we also charge everybody the same for road maintenance (apx the same: gas taxes do not cover road costs, and are just linear with gas use) even though the large vehicles do a vast majority of the damage (fourth power law). ~a
[2023-04-06 04:09:08] - xpovos: i love the energy, but i think going after the creatives is the wrong approach (illogical and illegal and immortal). the right approach, in my opinion, is having people pay for their damage. the amount insurance companies charge for insurance for a vehicle like that is absurdly low, because when their owners kill men women and children the insurance companies get off easy. ~a
[2023-04-06 03:13:02] - I’m not sure where Max is going with this one. But I think it might find a home here. https://maxbarry.com/2023/04/05/news.html — Xpovos
[2023-04-06 03:13:01] - I’m not sure where Max is going with this one. But I think it might find a home here. https://maxbarry.com/2023/04/05/news.html — Xpovos
[2023-04-05 17:57:37] - From a due process perspective, I think this is a big problem. - mig
[2023-04-05 17:56:39] - That Bragg has jurisdiction to charge him with violations of ny state election laws and has deliberately chosen not to to do so is … weird. - mig
[2023-04-05 17:54:57] - daniel: yet he is not being charged or indicted for any state election law violations. If you are relying on his charges to be linked to an underlying crime, I think having being charged of those crimes would be kind of required. - mig
[2023-04-05 17:20:38] - a: I could steal Paul's car! Thus making a Dem more likely to get elected? And reducing cars on the road! Fool proof. -Daniel
[2023-04-05 17:18:07] - daniel: when stealing the car, did you conspire with others to prevent any person from being elected to public office? ~a
[2023-04-05 17:05:57] - mig: Thats an excerpt from an NYT article. I haven't read through all the charges or anything and certainly not a legal expert but that sounded like there was at least something to try and prove. I think almost all white collar crime gets muddy cause its less obvious and trickier to prove than something more straight forward like car jacking etc. -Daniel
[2023-04-05 17:03:56] - The prosecutor argued on Tuesday that in addition to the federal campaign finance violations, Mr. Trump violated a state election law that makes it a crime to prevent any person from being elected to public office by unlawful means while acting in a conspiracy with others. Mr. Bragg is on much safer ground tying fraudulent business records to a violation of state law, because the defense cannot argue that he lacks jurisdiction on the matter.
[2023-04-05 16:47:08] - a: they will. I’m sure the defense team has motions to dismiss on those grounds (and others) in the works. - mig
[2023-04-05 16:15:30] - mig: if the charge isn't valid don't you think the defense will have the chance to bring this up with the judge? ~a
[2023-04-05 16:13:15] - Bragg has claimed that Trump violated ny state election laws but also claims he doesn’t have to indict or charge him with such to upgrade his current charges to a felony. From a due process perspective that looks pretty fucked up. - mig
[2023-04-05 16:11:52] - I still haven’t received a satisfactory answer about the underlying crime issue. It seems weird to me that you can claim these falsifying business records are linked to a crime yet not specify a specific crime or statute in the indictment. - mig
[2023-04-05 14:27:46] - a: Never heard of them - Dallas has a lot of contractors though so I can imagine lots of smaller companies can spring up as sub contractors to the big players (lockheed, northrop, siemens, etc) -Daniel
[2023-04-05 13:39:24] - a: Somewhat famously, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It's all about whether they've been led. I have sympathy for Paul's position, but am probably closer to yours. But even then, I have to acknowledge that this indictment, in and of itself, is not much, and is almost certainly highly politically motivated, even if it is also based in facts. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-05 03:10:04] - xpovos: agreed. 2015 was 8 years ago somehow. time seems to be passing quicker. ~a
[2023-04-05 03:09:13] - daniel: is arthur grand technologies a company people have heard of in your area? looks like a pretty small company. ~a
[2023-04-05 02:39:02] - paul: attacking your political enemies with the courts is bad and evil and should be avoided, of course. but allowing politicians to break any and all laws as they see fit can't be the only alternative to that. if hillary clinton or barack obama did something that deserves some sort of sentence, ignoring it will only breed more corruption. i assume ignoring powerful people breaking laws isn't your answer. what is your solution? ~a
[2023-04-05 02:24:50] - paul: "I also see the other side now" i'm pretty sure you've always been against using the judicial system to attack political opponents except that's not what is happening here. the grand jury is non-partisan. the . . . regular jury(?) is non-partisan. the district attorney (and special counsel jack smith in a parallel case) are presumably democrats, but they're not allowed to make a case out of nothing. ~a
[2023-04-05 02:14:11] - paul: "Trump going after his former (and possibly future) political rival" the grand jury made the indictment, i'm not sure if biden or even biden's cabinet had anything to do with it. ~a
[2023-04-04 23:59:29] - a: re: wall, absolutely he had. It’s not that the timing is off, but that nothing has changed. Considering that it’s been several years and a LOT has happened, it’s kind of remarkable. — Xpovos
[2023-04-04 23:52:31] - a: I can already see the arguments: The Republicans started it with "lock her up". Now the Democrats feel justified in going after Trump and Republicans are talking about going after the Bidens for the whole Hunter Biden situation when they get power back. -paul
[2023-04-04 23:50:52] - a: Given the current "the other side started it by doing this bad thing, so now we have to do an even WORSE thing to make up for it" environment, I'm worried this is going to escalate to a bad place. -Paul
[2023-04-04 23:49:52] - a: So, sure, if Trump went out and shot somebody in Times Square then prosecute him. But the weaker and more wishy washy the case... the more it looks like an attempt to punish a political rival and less a matter of holding the rich and powerful to the same standards as us. -Paul
[2023-04-04 23:48:31] - I mean, that's what we see in Russia and other authoritarian regimes, right? The most popular opposition candidates are always conveniently found guilty of "corruption" or something and thrown in jail. -Paul
[2023-04-04 23:47:28] - a: What has slightly changed is that I also see the other side now: That it's super dangerous in a democracy if the current team in power is constantly going after their political rivals to imprison them. -Paul
[2023-04-04 23:46:43] - a: I 100% agree that being rich and politically connected shouldn't shield you from anything and they should be treated like anybody else. I was on your side up until a few months ago and still completely see the merits to the argument. -Paul
[2023-04-04 23:45:06] - a: Sorry, I have been busy with the kids for Spring Break this week so haven't been checking the message board. 2017 is fine. The specific date doesn't matter as long as it was Trump going after his former (and possibly future) political rival. -Paul
[2023-04-04 21:33:43] - a: new evidence? fair. But if the FEC and DoJ still do not act? - mig
[2023-04-04 21:02:28] - mig: "The DoJ and FEC also passed on trying to litigate this" new evidence came out after that. ~a
[2023-04-04 21:01:09] - And if there were ny state criminal violations as Bragg seems to allege why was he not indicted for those also? - mig
[2023-04-04 21:00:32] - The DoJ and FEC also passed on trying to litigate this, so the question be asked again if there’s an underlying crime here? - mig
[2023-04-04 20:59:37] - The biggest hangup for me is that what makes these charges felonies is that they are tied to another underlying crime and that crime may not exist. Paying off mistresses to be silent about affairs being a campaign finance violation is very muddy waters, and the john edwards case makes precedent not favorable to Bragg. - mig
[2023-04-04 20:52:14] - a: yeah there were no surprises for me in the actual indictment and I remain pretty skeptical of Bragg’s case. - mig
[2023-04-04 20:26:14] - xpovos: i looked at the wikipedia article on "trump wall" and it mentions that he talked about the wall in his june 2015 announcement speech. i think that 2015 doesn't predate the current-ish us-mexican border-wall discussions. ~a
[2023-04-04 19:15:35] - mig/xpovos: the charges involve two different women. pretty "meh", but that detail was new to me. ~a
[2023-04-04 18:57:57] - title: Check out the copyright on that cartoon. 2015. That's interesting. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-04 18:31:59] - xpovos: here's some more context: i read from some random online that apparently he was allowed to do the indictment online (over zoom or whatever). trump prefers the press, because of course he does. ~a
[2023-04-04 18:07:25] - xpovos: you're right, but like you said these things are not the same. cnn and washingtonpost's headlines all weekend were about where trump was exactly: whether he had boarded the plane from florida to new york or not, that sort of thing. maybe the first ever indictment of a former president will garner a few unexpected things. ~a
[2023-04-04 17:34:15] - a: I don't often see huge crowds of people lining up for an indictment. Even for very public things where political protests/public gatherings are happening, it's not for the indictment. Counter example: the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, all of the public events were during trial. Obviously these things are not the same. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-04 17:15:39] - xpovos: virtue signaling is a hell of a drug. - mig
[2023-04-04 17:15:19] - xpovos: "celebration doesn't feel like a good choice here" this doesn't feel like celebration to me. this feels like an illegal act finally seeing its day in court. obviously the stormy-daniels case isn't the biggest situation of "trump doing illegal things", but it's also not nothing. the other (seemingly more serious) cases don't seem to be materializing in court, so i say, if the case ends up being solid, go for it. ~a
[2023-04-04 16:11:17] - Everyone seems to be prepared for the worst; some level of violence from the pro-Trump side. Yet, all that I'm seeing (all that is being shown) is anti-Trump. To me, this makes sense. The pro-Trump people have nothing to lose here, they already feel the courts are corrupted. Why bother to protest a further injury? -- Xpovos
[2023-04-04 16:09:55] - A slightly different angle. I was preparing my lunch. In my office's kitchen, there's a television, it was showing news. The news was all about this indictment and had video of people in the police cordons. The signs and demonstrators (shown, I don't know the reality) were all pro-indictment. This feels like bad optics. Celebration doesn't feel like a good choice here. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-04 16:06:19] - of course the caveat is we don’t *really* know until the indictments are unsealed. But right now I’m skeptical. - mig
[2023-04-04 16:05:21] - In a lot of articles(and that includes outside the fnc-verse) I’ve read I’ve seen the term “novel legal theory” thrown around a lot. That seems like a red flag to me. - mig
[2023-04-04 11:35:23] - a: I'm personally more willing to concur, there. The actual charges have been obscured. There's a lot of media narrative about what they are, but I'm not sure those are trustworthy sources. I could be wrong and the charges are a nothingburger, but I expect that when they're unsealed we'll see a lot. -- Xpovos
[2023-04-03 18:24:05] - anon: yep, i hear you, and that makes sense. ok, i guess i agree: an acquittal wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would give trump another thing to yell about. ok new argument: "general agreement" be damned, i'm not totally sure bragg's case is weak yet? ~a
[2023-04-03 18:19:01] - so many quotes from this wapo article on nuance at law school: "no, being a prosecutor is simply evil" or this one: "coming out as a moderate was more difficult than coming out as gay at stanford law school" or, fucking lol: "we will not be entertaining [conversations] that seek to reform, rather than abolish, the police" ~a
[2023-04-01 15:40:19] - a: an acquittal with a weak case (and there seems to be general agreement the Bragg's case is weak) is super bad optics. It lets Trump make witch hunt claims, which in this case he would probably be right. And fair or not in that case it would affect the other investigations into 1/6 and the classified docs. It'll be even worse if this case gets thrown out by a judge before we get to trial ...
[2023-04-01 15:39:37] - a: an acquittal with a weak case (and there seems to be general agreement the Bragg's case is weak) is super bad optics. It lets Trump make witch hunt claims, which in this case he would probably be right. And fair or not in that case it would affect the other investigations into 1/6 and the classified docs. It'll be even worse if this case gets thrown out by a judge before we get to trial ...
[2023-03-31 22:10:07] - you come at the king, you best not miss doesn't apply to a healthy democracy. ~a
[2023-03-31 22:08:57] - mig: "a indictment that doesn’t look like will secure a conviction will be an utter fucking disaster" i don't agree. it'll be an acquittal. not every indictment needs to lead to a conviction. ~a
[2023-03-31 21:57:37] - paul: you mean early 2017, right? if texas went after clinton in march 2017 for a law she broke, i wouldn't consider it a bad look. if she broke laws in texas i would consider it a bad look if they didn't. powerful people who bend or break a fuckton of laws based on their lifestyles will get a bunch indictments: it's just a fact of life, and they just roll with it? their extreme wealth and fucking crazy behaviors have pros and cons. ~a
[2023-03-31 21:10:55] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-new-york/ my concern is that these specific charges are kind of weak and potentially poison the well later on with more legitimate issues later. Unless Bragg is withholding something that makes this case really concrete, a indictment that doesn’t look like will secure a conviction will be an utter fucking disaster. - mig
[2023-03-31 20:29:58] - a: But at the end of the day, it's still a Democrat prosecuting a former President and one of the front-runners for the nomination next election. It would be a bad look of a Texas attorney general was going after Hilary Clinton in 2018 too. -Paul
[2023-03-31 20:28:26] - a: Yeah, I get it, but Clinton DID break the law, and I'm sure if anybody cared to dig, there was probably a law Obama broke as well. I totally agree that nobody should be above the law, but it's a really bad look to either threaten to, or actually go after your political opponent like that once you are in power. I get that this is the NY attorney general or whatever and not the Biden administration, and that there is a difference... -Paul
[2023-03-31 19:19:39] - paul: oof, it might be more dangerous for a democracy to not prosecute people at the top who break laws. using a district attorney or us attorney general to attack your opponents is one thing: obviously that is not allowed. but nobody is above the law: if hillary clinton or barack obama broke the law, and the statue of limitations have not expired, the relevant district attorneys should consider indicting them. ~a
[2023-03-31 18:44:56] - Daniel: I've changed my mind a little bit over the past 8 years or so on prosecuting former presidents. I used to be of the opinion that they're not special. If they did something wrong, then they should be treated like anybody else. But after the whole "lock her up" thing before and now going after Trump for something so seemingly minor... I can see how these things can be politically motivated and very dangerous for a democracy. -Paul
[2023-03-31 17:39:45] - how do you guys celebrate new quarter's eve? ~a
[2023-03-31 13:33:08] - https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1641594971462541315 glad the twitter correction is there at the bottom because holy shit that's not how this justice things works. - mig
[2023-03-31 13:27:32] - daniel: I'm more curious about the actual charges. If this is all related to the Stormy Daniels thing and relies on Michael Cohen's testimony it might all performative. - mig
[2023-03-31 00:14:57] - Trump indictment? I'm curious if it does to trial how he gets a fair jury. -Daniel
[2023-03-30 18:17:10] - paul: it is fine. all kinds of people are commencement speakers but if someone wants to propose that he is removed, or throw a fit, or protest, or whatever, that is also fine. ~a
[2023-03-30 14:43:28] - Al Gore did our High School commencement speech, which I wasn't a huge fan of going in, but thought he did a pretty good job and was happy to be effectively proven wrong. -Paul
[2023-03-30 14:42:39] - https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1640768298169122816 Curious what people think of Youngkin doing GMU's commencement speech (and some students agitating to get him removed as speaker). I don't know if politicians would be my first choice for speaker, but a relatively popular governor of the state the University is in seems like an acceptable option. -Paul
[2023-03-29 16:14:16] - I played on the previous weekend and enjoyed what i saw. - mig
[2023-03-29 15:48:47] - I'm sure other classes had similar issues, but I didn't notice any during the beta. And again, overall, positive experience. I'm looking forward to the game. I will spend many, many hours playing it. -- Xpovos
[2023-03-29 15:48:08] - Also, on the Necro specifically, one thing that took me FOREVER to figure out was how to summon skeletal mages. With all of their tooltipping and tutorializing, somehow that little (and to be honest, once done fairly obvious) detail was overlooked. -- Xpovos
[2023-03-29 15:47:05] - Overall, my major points of concern are some of the skill interfaces being coded weirdly, which seems to be by design; some of the bugs I noticed being unlikely to be fixed by go-live; clear and extreme monetization paths; lack of class balance--at least during leveling (we obviously can't say what end game looks like); sawtoothed power leveling (again leveling vs. endgame), etc. -- Xpovos
[2023-03-29 15:41:39] - I see it as not an issue at present because it's a later-game item, which means that it'll feel more freeing than exploitative. Also, the game so heavily rewards completing every dungeon that at some point pretty much every point of interest will be your "immediate goal." -- Xpovos
[2023-03-29 15:40:43] - Daniel: I largely enjoyed the D4 beta. My thoughts on the MMO-ness are much the same. It wasn't as intrusive as I feared, and the architectural change to the game world resulted in it being able to feel much more alive (and I mean in the sense of NPCs and towns, not other players). I'm less worried about mounts, currently, though longer term that will be an issue... -- Xpovos
[2023-03-28 21:03:34] - I wonder a bit about a bigger overworld with mounts. I recently played through Elden Ring and the game gives you a mount early in that game and I ended up just riding past everything that wasn't my immediate goal. -Daniel
[2023-03-28 21:01:37] - xpovos: What did you think of the D4 beta? I played a druid to 25 and a necro to 20. I had fun with it but wasn't blown away or anything. I didn't mind the MMO-ness as much as I thought I might. I generally only saw people in town or at the various event things. Anytime else is was very rare to see someone. -Daniel
[2023-03-27 21:15:49] - Fox News,but on paper, is close enough. Weirdly it seems to have been better when the Moonies were more involved. But that could be my own bias. — Xpovos
[2023-03-27 09:31:08] - xpovos: i had read online that WE was somewhat like fox news: so, maybe conservative, or fast and loose with the facts? so that they don't like ranked choice because they think it will hurt conservatives, or that i can't seem to confirm any of the examples in the article, seems to be consistent to me. what is their readership’s wheelhouse? ~a
[2023-03-26 17:35:58] - a: Yes, WE would likely oversimplify and omit, particularly in their editorial page. My point isn’t that they’re against it or making suspiciously imprecise arguments, but the direction of angle feels very much not in their normal readership’s wheelhouse. You disagree, it seems. Are there other similar examples? — Xpovos
[2023-03-26 17:34:12] - Paul: It depends how it’s done. But sometimes, yes. — Xpovos
[2023-03-26 16:22:41] - But I don't understand the finale, about how runoffs are better. Isn't ranked choice basically just instant runoff? -Paul
[2023-03-26 16:22:14] - And thus those ballots get tossed and not counted in later rounds? That seems like a voter issue in that case. -Paul
[2023-03-26 16:21:38] - Xpovos: Yeah, there are some interesting philosophical points made there. I'm a little confused by the main argument around a minority of votes cast determining elections. Is it because a significant chunk of people just rank one candidate and leave the rest blank? -Paul
[2023-03-26 05:10:47] - xpovos: "This is not the angle of attack I would have expected...from this source" i feel like this is exactly the angle of attack i would expect from this source. ~a
[2023-03-26 02:01:22] - xpovos: would washingtonexaminer lie-by-omission or oversimplify? i feel like all of these statements are oversimplifications: i googled "san francisco" "27%" 2011 ballot and couldn't find anyone else reporting on that. ~a
[2023-03-25 22:52:22] - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/ranked-choice-voting-is-a-mistake
[2023-03-25 22:52:20] - I make it a habit to read/listen to opinions I disagree with because it helps me to improve my own arguments for my opinions. So I disagree with the general stance of the source, but particularly this article's argument are ... interesting. It's worth reading, though, I think. This is not the angle of attack I would have expected. Particularly not from this source. -- Xpovos
[2023-03-25 20:29:04] - a: Without knowing too much about the specifics, less restrictive zoning regulations seem like a good thing. -Paul
[2023-03-25 18:59:41] - alexandria is also trying to make less restrictive zoning laws now too. good, yes? ~a
[2023-03-25 13:21:18] - Hilariously wrong. Hydralisks don't do AoE and Colossus notably don't hit air. Also, Hydralisks can hit either, but it specifically calls out doing damage to ground units, which is not Skytoss. -Paul
[2023-03-24 23:16:46] - ha wtf. good overall suggestion but their examples were both technically wrong, yes? ~a
prev <-> next