prev <-> next
[2025-12-17 16:12:33] - paul: are you still following shop or xyz? shop has been doing very well (historically and recently), and xyz less so, but i really haven't been following their news too closely. ~a
[2025-12-16 16:46:28] - the data is certainly going down a lot since the 70s. in some graphs it looks like there's a knee in a few of the graphs around 2008 even if it really looks like the big changes were in the 80s. not surprisingly, most incidences (of crashes and dui traffic stops) are on weekends, at night, men, in their 20s, near a holiday. i did also see that when alcohol arrests go up, fatalities go down? ~a
[2025-12-16 16:35:29] - https://i.redd.it/0ufakljspk7g1.jpeg i wonder if rideshare popularity (and to a lesser extent self-driving / autonomous-driving) shows up anywhere in the dui statistics: both dui crashes and traffic-stop arrests? ~a
[2025-12-15 20:08:40] - paul: no actually it is presented as a trade-off. "get walkable neighborhood" using "pay more for". your trade off is just a different trade off. "get walkable neighborhood" using "smaller home". in your pewresearch trade-off, they don't mention prices (so presumably prices are to remain relatively the same in your example). ~a
[2025-12-15 19:01:45] - a: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/02/majority-of-americans-prefer-a-community-with-big-houses-even-if-local-amenities-are-farther-away/ I think when you present the question as a trade-off (instead of just: "Do you want this good thing?") the numbers tend to go down. -Paul
[2025-12-15 16:24:03] - trump tweet from this morning. there is no line. nothing he could possibly post would surprise me anymore. no arrangement of english words on that feed would surprise me: he could straight up resign... he could declare biden his own personal jesus christ... and i would not raise an eyebrow. ~a
[2025-12-11 16:53:46] - if you had asked me to guess both of those numbers i would have said something much lower. ~a
[2025-12-09 20:47:16] - 77% of americans would pay more to live in walkable neighborhoods. also, 92% of gen-z americans would pay more to live in walkable neighborhoods. crazy. (national association of realtors) ~a
[2025-12-07 20:22:05] - xpovos: "not if Trump wants to get elected" record scratch. hmm? ~a
[2025-12-07 20:21:38] - xpovos: (continuing) if we're worried about safety, smaller cars will help safety of vulnerable road users like people on foot and people on bikes, children on their way to school, parents with strollers, etc. it'll also decrease deaths when two cars hit each-other. you won't need to change cafe, you won't need to dismantle the fmvss: you will need to tax cars based on weight, but that's long overdue imo. ~a
[2025-12-07 20:18:58] - xpovos: "They won't happen though" i have total hope it will happen. (eventually) "Cars that small fail US safety regulations, in large part because our highway mix is so ridiculously big and heavy." we can change the safety regulations and the highway mix. (eventually) but also all highways allow motorcycles: which i'll fully admit are terribly dangerous. and some non-interstate highways allow pedestrians and people on bicycles. ~a
[2025-12-07 20:15:47] - paul: "tariffs?" yes. or more probably . . . everything? the president has done like twelve things to kill the national economy, and maybe six of those reasons, tariffs being one of them, have combined their powers to knock us back a bit. but also, who knows: there's a lot of random noise in there. we will see how 2026 goes i guess? ~a
[2025-12-07 15:59:26] - (continuing) Of course consumer preference is only a stumbling block if you care what people want. Make some new laws, take CAFE to the moon. Dismantle the FMVSS. Tax cars aggressively and progressively on weight. It can happen. But not if Trump wants to get elected. Of course, he isn't acting much like he cares about that most of the time anyway. -- Xpovos
[2025-12-07 15:57:37] - a: I would like the small cars, and I'd be among the first to buy them, in many circumstances. They won't happen though. Cars that small fail US safety regulations, in large part because our highway mix is so ridiculously big and heavy. And fixing the consumer side is only a partial point. Seen how many semis are on 95? It's a Matryoshka doll of logistical impossibilities. -- Xpovos
[2025-12-06 20:41:23] - a: "it is a very pro-adrian-message" Stopped clock and all, right? I wouldn't be surprised if 1% or so of Trump's tweets / truths / whatevs are something I can get behind. -Paul
[2025-12-06 20:39:32] - a: "do you expect this trend to continue?" I don't know? I should probably do more research into exactly why this is happening this year. Tariffs? It's not like the US stock market has been a dumpster fire. -Paul
[2025-12-06 20:38:03] - a: "vxus/vtiax will outperform all of the major us indexes in 2025" I am finally vindicated! Joking, of course, since having a larger-than-suggested allocation to emerging markets has hurt my returns for probably close to two decades. -Paul
[2025-12-06 20:37:02] - a: "he get's a solid zero point five out of three?" Yeah, probably. You could generously say maybe a 1 out of 3 but that's likely as high as I would go. -Paul
[2025-12-06 17:48:36] - a: if we’re scheduling blocks of time we might as well start a podcast /nudge paul. - mig
[2025-12-05 18:07:49] - hmmm wow, i kinda like this tweet from the president. it's not something i think will turn into a reality, and i doubt his intentions are good, but it is a very pro-adrian-message. ~a
[2025-12-05 15:55:59] - paul: unless something major changes in december, vxus/vtiax will outperform all of the major us indexes in 2025. i had a hard time looking at data before ~2010, so i'll just say that hasn't ever happened in recent memory. do you expect this trend to continue? (... to continue generally, not literally: will it happen more often than never, in the next three years?) ~a
[2025-12-05 15:11:12] - paul: " I try to judge things by outcomes and legality rather than by motivations" so of the three measures, the "motivations", the "outcomes" (whether it's good), and "legality", he get's a solid zero point five out of three? like, it's only maybe legal, that's it. also, really it's probably not even legal, either. ~a
[2025-12-04 17:58:31] - a: Bringing up politics with people whose politics I am unfamiliar with is never my go-to. It's always safe to assume everybody vehemently disagrees with me. -Paul
[2025-12-04 17:57:48] - a: As with most things Trump, even if he might be doing something right-ish, I'm sure the motivations are wrong.
I try to judge things by outcomes and legality rather than by motivations. -Paul[2025-12-03 18:17:40] - it's always better to have doubts about someone's political beliefs than to be disappointed. ~a
[2025-12-03 18:17:20] - paul: "I'm sure the motivation is wrong" yeah, ok, we probably mostly agree, then. "not encouraging disobedience and mutiny" yeah sure i agree on this. it would be good to get a perspective of someone in the military of course. i do work with people in the military pretty consistently and constantly. these days, though, i'm less inclined to dive into politics with my current crop of military coworkers. i'm happy not knowing.
~a[2025-12-03 17:45:32] - a: Maybe there's good reasons to have these military rules in place in terms of not encouraging disobedience and mutiny. Hard for me to judge as somebody with no experience with military service. -Paul
[2025-12-03 17:44:51] - a: "are we on the same page about whether it's a good, or positive, move" I don't know if I have enough information to say. The optics look bad, and I'm sure the motivation is wrong, but don't military courts operate in different ways than civilian courts? Defendants have fewer rights? -Paul
[2025-12-02 16:06:11] - a: "but what are the facts?" Not sure I have all of the facts either. I think the concern is that there are non-zero numbers of people on X (sometimes with lots of followers) who live overseas who are specifically trying to stir up discontent. -Pau
[2025-12-02 15:59:25] - a: I would advocate for a scheduled SC2 session that Miguel could join though.
-Paul[2025-12-02 15:59:01] - a: I don't know if a schedule would work. Unfortunately, my day to day is all over the place and there's little rhyme or reason why I might be slightly less busy one day (and thus able to check the message board) versus another day. Sorry. -Paul
[2025-12-01 18:53:50] - literal orders to fire upon the shipwrecked. ~a
[2025-12-01 16:40:30] - paul: "It sounds like this might be legal?" i wasn't thinking about legality, really. are we on the same page about whether it's a good, or positive, move. ~a
[2025-12-01 16:39:17] - paul: "You want to facts behind it or my opinion?" both. it sounds like you've given me your opinion, but what are the facts? i've read a bit about it, but don't feel like i have a full unbiased view of what even happened (or what is currently still happening?) ~a
[2025-12-01 15:25:13] - paul/mig: i was just thinking it's been a week since we saw any traffic on the message board. is there like, a "schedule" we should set up or something? some sort of rhythm? "message board day"? i'm kinda tired of checking the message board multiple times per day to just be disappointed. ~a
[2025-12-01 15:23:02] - paul: "Congress has already abdicated so much of it's power anyway" so true. but generally if they're abdicating it more, they are making things worse. and if they're demanding back their power, usually that's the direction we want to head. (if republicans want to work with democrats and independents in congress to retake a right usually allotted to congress *vs* the wishes of a democratic president...i'll still generally be for it) ~a
prev <-> next