prev <-> next
[2026-02-11 18:54:39] - paul: (also since it's not obvious from my quote, "you" = aaron) ~a
[2026-02-11 18:46:11] - paul: my count is probably a bit off, but i still think my guess for 2023 was right on. and, i still don't think we'll ever reach replacement (22), but it looks like we got much closer than i thought we would. ~a
[2026-02-11 18:43:53] - paul: touching back on this since we talked about it at your party: from 2013: "me+miguel+pierce+dewey+paul+travis+vinnie+david+you+aparna+andrew=6 kids" from 2018: "i predicted we'd be at 10-12 kids in 2018 and we are! (12 kids?) 11 of us, 12 kids, we passed half way to replacement. i predict in 2023 we are at 14-16 kids." other than being right on my prediction, i have otherwise lost count in 2026, can you do the count for me? ~a
[2026-02-11 18:33:50] - a: https://x.com/WUTangKids/status/2021399603162251326 I think this should work? -Paul
[2026-02-11 14:17:21] - mig: it's way too soon to tell. they still have not released all of the un-redacted files. many of the redactions are (obviously, provably, uncontroversially) illegal, in contrary to law. ~a
[2026-02-11 14:14:24] - paul: where do i see it? ~a
[2026-02-11 13:26:22] - a: have we gotten anything of real substance out of these files? - mig
[2026-02-11 13:25:19] - a: has all these epstein files dumps been worth the squeeze? There sees to have been a lot of collateral damage, including for people who had just passing mention in the files. There looks to be no evidence to implicate anybody else (no matter who much wishcasting khanna and massie might want there to be). - mig
[2026-02-10 19:57:54] - a: There's a pretty good meme going around X where they subtitle his performance with an economic argument against the Jones Act. -Paul
[2026-02-09 20:25:02] - "Bad Bunny traveled 124 yards with the football during his halftime show, beating the Patriots 79 total rushing yards in the game." ~a
[2026-02-08 18:03:59] - a: I noticed it awhile ago but didn't want to give you the satisfaction of commenting on it.
-Paul[2026-02-08 02:23:47] - a: Tell me that Trump hasn't read the Constitution (that he swore to uphold) without telling me he hasn't read it. -- Xpovos
[2026-02-07 18:02:18] - xpovos: I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to say something. i removed the tilting text. ~a
[2026-02-07 17:54:44] - mig: "President Donald Trump ... suggestion that Republicans 'nationalize' elections as he continued to make false claims of widespread voter fraud and refused to accept his 2020 defeat". ~a
[2026-02-07 02:56:32] - The tilted comments are doing my head in. -- Xpovos
[2026-02-06 19:19:58] - a: White House officials can claim whatever they want but presumably there will be a more in-depth investigation. Still, the law tends to side with law enforcement so I wouldn't be surprised if the agent was exonerated. -Paul
[2026-02-06 16:49:52] - a: are we talking about the save act or something else? I don’t know what “federalizing” or “nationalizing” elections means? - mig
[2026-02-04 18:51:45] - should the us government federalize elections? i assume in this case, the federal executive would be in charge of all elections, including the midterms and local elections? ~a
[2026-02-02 18:20:04] - what is going on in the comment threads of this video ~a
[2026-01-30 22:35:47] - attempted tyranny? ~a
[2026-01-30 22:09:54] - a: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/20/fox-news-reporter-targeted-us-government wasn’t for a lack of trying - mig
[2026-01-30 18:19:25] - mig: i don't remember hearing about the biden or obama administration arresting anyone in fox news, or in oan, or in newsmax. i think if they had done that, people would be rightfully losing their shit. ~a
[2026-01-30 18:17:05] - mig: isn't arresting someone in the press who hasn't broken the law actually illegal though? who broke the law here? isn't it insanely concerning given the circumstances? is this tyranny? ~a
[2026-01-30 18:01:56] - a: absent any new information, arresting lemon seems wrong and a pointless exercise. As much as he is a fucking race baiting clown, that isn’t illegal. - mig
[2026-01-30 16:11:31] - arresting people for doing reporting that you don't like seems like a problem. i hate newsmax and oan, obviously, but arresting newsmax and oan reporters for reporting on a nonviolent (or even more-so a violent) protest seems crazy to me. ~a
[2026-01-30 16:03:06] - mig: a judge already barred the justice department from arresting lemon, so i'm not sure how we got here? ~a
[2026-01-30 16:02:57] - mig: i don't have a fun lyric, but we've reached the point where we're arresting the press now. lemon was arrested in los angeles for reporting on that protest in minneapolis. i guess the administration didn't like his reporting. as much as you think the protest was dumb (i'm very on the fence about that protest, the more i learn about it the more i think it was legal/fine, but still fairly borderline) he was press! is this ok? ~a
[2026-01-30 15:30:24] - mig: i do love me some beetles. til about item veto, wow. i'm very glad the president doesn't have item veto, that seems super shady and generally isn't how contracts work at all.
i guess contracts and laws are obviously different. ~a[2026-01-29 18:52:55] - https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-democrats-introduce-flood-of-new-tax-proposals-despite-running-on-affordability-money-employer-property-dog-walking-groomin If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat, If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet. - mig
[2026-01-29 14:58:01] - seems pretty shady to have the dni looking into election fraud. potentially laws are being broken, i assume, but it seems laws and thee etc. if there is election fraud here, it's in the making, not being investigated and these midterms results will be the most suspect of our lifetimes. ~a
[2026-01-29 14:54:56] - "Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey at the scene...The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which she leads, has no law enforcement powers and was created to focus on foreign threats, not domestic matters." (paywall washingtonpost). ummm, what? ~a
[2026-01-27 23:45:30] - a: ive been looking at this more closely and It looks to me this didn’t look justified. - mig
[2026-01-27 19:48:32] - mig: is it still way too early? paul: regarding new information, today the investigation to the pretti shooting was deemed justified (wh officials, according to washingtonpost) ~a
[2026-01-26 14:52:19] - a: "why do you say this" Again, with the caveat I haven't been following this nearly as closely as most, but from what I heard his "crime" was filming ICE and trying to help somebody up who they pushed down? Doesn't even seem like he was obstructing or anything. -Paul
[2026-01-25 16:32:25] - paul: "odd that the two notable ICE shootings that have made major media attention have been of protesters and not of illegal immigrants or the theoretical targets of the enforcement" why. ~a
[2026-01-25 16:32:12] - paul: "he probably didn't even deserve arresting or detaining" why do you say this? "people on the left now clamoring about 2nd amendment rights" i won't speak for others, but just say that some of them might be clamoring about 2nd amendment rights because of the obvious hypocrisy and double standard. it's the black panthers, and gun control, all over again. ~a
[2026-01-25 12:46:35] - a: It is a little... odd that the two notable ICE shootings that have made major media attention have been of protesters and not of illegal immigrants or the theoretical targets of the enforcement. -Paul
[2026-01-25 12:43:48] - a: I'm glad to see lots of libertarian types I follow accurately pointing out that mere possession of a gun isn't sufficient for a death sentence. -Paul
[2026-01-25 12:43:12] - a: It's amusing to see people on the left now clamoring about 2nd amendment rights and people on the right being all like "if you have a gun around the cops expect to be shot!". Darkly amusing, that is. -Paul
[2026-01-25 12:42:28] - a: So even more innocent than Renee Good. Oddly enough, though, his possession of a firearm make it feel more like the Rittenhouse comparison than before. -Paul
[2026-01-25 12:40:58] - a: Alex Pretti is the shooting yesterday? Same caveat that things can change as more evidence comes out, but on the surface seems pretty similar in all respects: Only thing is he probably didn't even deserve arresting or detaining. -Paul
[2026-01-25 04:21:51] - mig: he was not armed when he was shot. and you know that. ~a
[2026-01-25 04:08:47] - there’s at least some agreement that this person was indeed armed which is a bit of a red flag but not enough details are clear for me just yet. - mig
[2026-01-25 04:05:28] - a: way too early and not enough information for me to hold an opinion one way or another at this time. - mig
[2026-01-25 03:28:19] - paul: ok, thank you. mig/paul: any thoughts on alex pretti and masked ice agent in dark-green jacket and blue jeans? ~a
[2026-01-21 16:18:16] - a: Agreed on pretty much all points. I haven't been following the situation too closely, but from what I can tell he should not have been in front of the car and I haven't heard any good reason why medical assistance was prevented. -Paul
[2026-01-21 01:08:49] - paul: regarding that last one, "New Evidence Reveals Renee Good Was Still Alive When ICE Blocked Medic" sourced from new york times (lots of other articles are republishing this). ~a
[2026-01-20 18:37:09] - paul: why did one officer reach into her driver's side door when the other was standing in front of it? why did they both instruct her to move along, but also instruct her to stop? why didn't they allow medical professionals to assist her after she was shot? ~a
[2026-01-20 18:36:53] - paul: gotcha, ok. i'll fully concede that good should not have used her car in a protest. that's super dumb: i usually even leave my bike behind if there are a lot of people! but past that, why did ross walk in front of her car when it was in drive, even if that is against their rules? why was ross assigned to make these stops right after (six months after) having an issue following these same rules? (i can link this if you want) ~a
[2026-01-20 14:56:00] - a: And it's hard to tell just how much worse his actions here are vs Biden. Optically it looks a lot worse and I'm sure it is worse in many ways, but how much worse is hard to tell. -Paul
[2026-01-20 14:53:10] - a: But... I'll be honest, it's a little hard to get good unbiased information about stuff. The reaction to Trump's immigration actions in his first term (by the left and the media) seemed a bit out of step with how much it differed from what Obama did. -Paul
[2026-01-20 14:51:22] - a: I don't have enough information to say for sure. Knowing Trump, he likely sent ICE there because he saw that report about Somali fraud (which is exactly the kind of anecdotal reason that doesn't make sense). -Paul
[2026-01-20 14:38:44] - mig: what happened exactly? there is one sentence there. they had a protest that went into a church? and "disrupted service"?
could they have been less specific? i clicked on the "disrupted" (cnn to cnn) link, and there were a few more details thankfully. it does seem like a dumb plan, i'll admit. but even that link didn't have too many details on what "disrupted" means. ~a[2026-01-20 05:44:37] - paul: "What specifically?" should he have been stationed in minnesota of all places? does it make sense to crack down on immigration offenses in a city and state that have very small numbers of illegal immigrants and small amount illegal immigration? if it doesn't make sense, what was the purpose of his assignment? ~a
[2026-01-20 02:35:35] - https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnesota-ice-agents-minneapolis-protests-01-19-26?post-id=cmklsjs6w0000356pmnv0hg1m trying to figure out why anyone thought this was a good idea? - mig
[2026-01-20 01:30:47] - a: Happy to share my thoughts. What specifically? On his guilt / innocence? I feel like juries often give leeway to law enforcement so my guess is he wouldn't have been found guilty. -Paul
[2026-01-19 16:00:16] - a: if you are in front of a car and that car starts to accelerate, I do believe its is reasonable to believe your life is in peril. Pointing to the fact he was hit is evidence he was in fact in front of the vehicle (before more video emerged whether he actually was in front of the car was being disputed). - mig
[2026-01-19 05:41:59] - mig: "there’s no requirement that you actually suffer grievous injury for your life to be in peril" was his life in peril? barnes v felix went to the supreme court in . . . 2025 . . . and pretty clearly suggests we need to look at the details that you consider irrelevant. ~a
[2026-01-19 03:48:46] - paul: xpovos and i don't think there will be a trial. so you can freely give your thoughts now, maybe? ~a
[2026-01-17 19:15:12] - a: its irrelevant because there’s no requirement that you actually suffer grievous injury for your life to be in peril, and this justifying deadly force. We’ve established the car in that instance was a deadly weapon, and he was in the way of the car and also struck by the car. Those are the only relevant factors, everything else is just noise to me. - mig
[2026-01-17 16:48:17] - a: No, I don’t expect this to go to trial. I doubt we ever get discovery, even. — Xpovos
[2026-01-16 17:26:38] - paul: "as far as I can tell public opinion so far is NOT on the officer's side" nice thank you for that perspective. miguel's perspective isn't exactly out in left field though: i do see the same perspective on r/conservative etc. ~a
[2026-01-16 17:23:37] - mig: "if she just gets out of the fucking car or better yet not illegally block traffic, we aren’t having this conversation" if we are second guessing the scenario, why was ice there in the first place? if ice wasn't there fucking around, we aren't having this conversation? ~a
[2026-01-16 17:22:13] - mig: "The car at that point was a deadly weapon". right. agreed. exactly, this is why the policy exists: every running car can quickly become a deadly weapon, if you step by the the front or by the back. so, the policy is for this reason: if you step in the front or by the back when it's running, you might have to kill the driver, so please avoid that situation. wait until the vehicle is no longer running. ~a
[2026-01-16 17:21:25] - mig: "the degree of whatever injury the agent might have sustained is irrelevant" why is it irrelevant? ~a
[2026-01-16 04:22:07] - a: Trump has done a lot of things that (possibly?) warrant standing trial. I'm not sure reckless use of ICE is one that is likely to happen. Of note: as far as I can tell public opinion so far is NOT on the officer's side. -Paul
[2026-01-15 16:55:00] - if she just gets out of the fucking car or better yet not illegally block traffic, we aren’t having this conversation. - mig
[2026-01-15 16:52:55] - and as ill advised it might have been to get in front of the vehicle, that did not force Good to hit the gas. She did that on her own volition and the consequences of that action are solely on her. - mig
[2026-01-15 16:50:38] - a: the degree of whatever injury the agent might have sustained is irrelevant. The car at that point was a deadly weapon. If someone shoots you and you shoot them back they can’t be like “why’d you shoot at me I only grazed your shoulder!” - mig
[2026-01-14 14:58:48] - xpovos: i looked briefly at your summary videos, and i'm not sure what point they're trying to make about what hand was holding the phone. i do agree it was a chaotic scene and that a lot things were happening. do you guys think there will be a trial? ~a
[2026-01-14 14:48:18] - paul: i agree with your assessment. i agree good made a bunch of bad decisions. as did ross. as did trump: honestly, we wouldn't have gotten to this point if it weren't for his (life threatening) ice decisions. trump won't stand trial for his decisions, of course. ~a
[2026-01-14 14:45:22] - mug: "the agent was in front of the car when she hit the gas, at that point making her car a deadly weapon. The agent was struck. These are really the only 'facts' that i believe matter". i couldn't disagree more. those aren't facts, and many other facts do matter. ~a
[2026-01-14 14:43:59] - mig: "who ended up getting hit" this seems like an oversimplification of what happened. he wasn't hurt. he was trained not to pass in front of her vehicle, and he went anyways. she should not have driven at him, but he knew he wasn't supposed to put himself and herself in that position, and he did it anyways. he shouldnt' have . and he shouldn't have shot her. ~a
[2026-01-13 14:24:14] - xpovos: the agent was in front of the car when she hit the gas, at that point making her car a deadly weapon. The agent was struck. These are really the only “facts” that i believe matter. Everything just ins’t relevant to me at this point. - mug
[2026-01-12 22:45:43] - I haven't watched this, but I trust the team doing the research, and it will likely help solidify everyone's existing opinions, but at least with a more grounded and fact-based approach? Probably not going to watch. https://bsky.app/profile/bellingcat.com/post/3mbwmvgypqc2x -- Xpovos
[2026-01-12 20:20:13] - a: I actually see this as a bit like the opposite of the Kyle Rittenhouse situation: A person who isn't necessarily a role model putting themselves in bad situations who nonetheless didn't deserve to be assaulted / killed. -Paul
[2026-01-12 20:18:32] - a: One side obviously prefers focusing on the latter and the other side the former. -Paul
[2026-01-12 20:17:39] - a: And that acting like a dick to law enforcement and disobeying orders does NOT warrant a death sentence and the ICE agent was not justified in using lethal force in that situation. -Paul
[2026-01-12 20:16:42] - a: I think two (related) things can be true which are also a bit at odds: That Renee Good probably made a series of bad decisions to put herself in a situation which was a bit dangerous for her... -Paul
[2026-01-12 20:15:39] - a: Obviously it's the same old story of people looking at the same video and somehow seeing completely different things depending on their partisan lens. -Paul
[2026-01-12 20:13:57] - a: Sorry, I was out of town for a stretch. Jonathan Ross is the ICE agent involved? With the caveat that I like to wait for more information to come out before making any firm judgments (let's see what comes out at trial)... -Paul
[2026-01-12 16:43:06] - a: that the agent might have not followed some protocol isn’t a license to try and run somebody over. - mig
[2026-01-12 16:25:59] - a: should the officer gone in front of the vehicle. Probably not. Should Good have decided to hit the gas and try to make a getaway with a person in front of her car, who ended up getting hit? Definitely fucking not. - mig
[2026-01-11 23:57:07] - Reading news also means I read the news I intend to read. Not the news the editors want me to consume. So I really have been able to ignore this story, in detail. I have broad strokes and that’s all I want. — Xpovos
[2026-01-11 22:09:15] - xpovos: yeah, understood. i do some of both. but lots of those were reading. in fact if you count their (very popular, and seriously used by real people) websites, all of those were reading except "talk shows"?
~a[2026-01-11 18:44:56] - Xpovos doesn’t watch TV. I read all my news. —Xpovos
[2026-01-11 05:17:50] - anonymous: "I can be comfortably against it". yeah, me too. so i read that you're with my position and against miguel's? googling the names is fine i think. this isn't exactly a situation where their names are how the media refers to this situation. but, i was referring to the top story on every news reporting agency this past week: cnn and truthsocial and washingtonpost and the nightly talk shows and foxnews and wikinews. ~a
[2026-01-11 05:09:10] - a: I’ve intentionally not sought out information about the topic (I had to google the names you gave) because this is a situation where knowing more doesn’t help. I can fathom ways this happens and ICE can find a reason to absolve, but that’s not how it works for me and it never should have. But this is cop behavior. It’s not new, and it’s not significantly worse. But I can’t and won’t defend it. And I can be comfortably against it.
[2026-01-11 04:32:47] - ("agents should avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle. agents should not ... use their body to block a vehicle's path. agents should avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force." this is exactly what happened! source) ~a
[2026-01-11 04:32:02] - paul/xpovos: and you guys? i obviously don't disagree with any of miguel's words, except the conclusion. i.e. the kind of activities the federal immigration and customs enforcement are engaging are borderline dangerous and in cases like this really fucking dangerous. they even went as far as to make this exact situation against their own rules to avoid this exact situation. ~a
[2026-01-10 03:40:36] - a: ever since I’ve been hearing about people using their vehicles to block ice agents, I kind of felt it was inevitable something like this would happen. As much as I’m not a fan of the deployment of ice this isn’t season 2 of andor. The kind of activities protestors are engaging are borderline dangerous and in cases like this really fucking dangerous. - mig
[2026-01-09 17:03:39] - any thoughts on jonathan ross and renee good? i have a lot of thoughts, but i'd like to know what you guys think. ~a
[2026-01-09 14:57:47] - xpovos: ha, yes, totally. nothing has come close to taking over paying with a credit card. i guess google pay seems like sometimes they want to come close, i use google pay (tap to pay) instead of my credit card for in-person interactions exclusively. but on the internet, i feel like credit card number is still the king. ~a
[2026-01-09 13:47:58] - Shit like this reaffirms my belief that Bitcoin has a real future. https://x.com/i/status/2009280294667354509 -- Xpovos
[2026-01-07 15:26:38] - if you can get past the first few paragraphs, this is a great summary of what has happened in venezuela ~a
[2026-01-01 06:59:53] - yikes yeah that's pretty lame. happy new year, mig. ~a
[2026-01-01 03:09:53] - https://www.fox5dc.com/news/fairfax-county-meals-tax-goes-effect-jan-1.amp three cheers for regressive taxes! - mig
[2025-12-20 20:22:36] - a: I almost sold XYZ a few times but recently it looks a bit like they got their mojo back and I still think there's an outside chance that all this seemingly unrelated Bitcoin work turns into something. -Paul
[2025-12-20 20:22:01] - a: Yup, still following both. Shop has still been executing really well. Looks like Block kind of had a few years of just seemingly not doing much while they lost ground with their square reader business. -Paul
[2025-12-20 20:20:52] - a: Ride share: I'm pretty sure I heard that studies showed that DUIs and road fatalities went down with the increased popularity of Uber (for reasons you might expect). -Paul
[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