Lurker > red sox 777

I've never heard of that extending to breaks lasting say, a whole weekend, just while a question was pending.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I just started watching today's testimony (they're starting an hour earlier so they're even longer days now rip), and this is already a complete disaster. She's just retconning things she said during the testimony and she clearly spoke with her attorneys, which she isn't allowed to. This is completely bizarre.

What do you mean she's not allowed to speak with her attorneys? She is allowed to speak with her attorneys during breaks.

The Democrats should be hammering how strong the economy is. They should be constantly bragging about the historically low unemployment rate and tremendous surge in wages. If Trump was campaigning he'd be bragging about these things nonstop and taking credit, deserved or not.

Lopen posted...

Current Stock Price should have basically no relevance to what you think the stock price will be. The timeline should be in your head, and the justifiable stock price at that time should be in your head. The price is just psychology to trick you into selling if the news hasn't warranted the drop.

This doesn't feel right. I get what you're saying, but the current price is an aggregation of the information available out there - including marketwide factors that don't just apply to the particular stock you're looking at. The current price is well correlated with future price in that it's hard to find any set of metrics that is a better predictor of future price than current price. Now, of course that is the whole game, but the way you're phrasing it, it sounds like the game is easy and it isn't easy to generate returns better than an index fund.

The lesson to learn with Zoom is having a moment of reflection and considering why you thought that higher stock price was warranted to begin with. Is that still the case? If it's not, and you're not selling and are averaging down, you're not learning but are instead in denial. It's the opposite of learning.

Obviously. If I didn't think that I would have just sold it.

How are you deciding the news is good or better than what the market already priced it in at?

I don't get the combativeness. But in any case, we'll find out next week it seems.

Lopen posted...

Are you sure you're not just going deeper into a con? Not sure why Zoom at higher than its current P/E makes sense-- what's the growth thesis with Microsoft Teams taking more market share and remote work decreasing over time.

No I'm not sure. That's kind of the point.

It being the only meme that isn't running right now, and is in fact dumping (??? Who would sell now???) is like... what? Are we going to bankrupt Robinhood or something with this run I'm like totally confused why it would keep being suppressed. I mean short interest has gone up almost 50% this week but yeah. This is wild.

Lopen posted...

This is affecting all stocks right now, not just BBIG. I think that's where your confusion is.

I don't think BBIG being pinned here is any worse than say Netflix dumping 50% on losing 100k subscribers.

Okay, I guess to be fair, earlier you said all meme stocks were surging, not all stocks.

Of course I've been averaging down.

Moonroof posted...

Like, if it goes up in December then does that mean you were right the whole time? What is right defined as? I feel like there needs to be a set deadline in order to measure whether it was worth it.

Well let's put it this way. I bought a lot of ZM last fall. It's way down since then. I haven't sold because I still believe the company is way undervalued and will go up eventually. But I was conclusively wrong. Why? Because if I'd held cash or bought other stuff, I'd be able to buy more ZM shares now than I have. And then I could still participate in the upside and in fact make more off the upside (assuming it actually does come).

If it was down 10% or 20% I'd say that you can say those are temporary losses you need to live with but being down 60%..... I think it's more useful to conclude I was wrong and try to learn from it.

So the Lousiana legislature killed that bill about ignoring federal courts and impeaching state judges. They came to their senses.

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/sarahnferris/status/1524792388677402626?s=21

What the fuck are we doing here

Wow that feels identical to the stuff George Orwell was warning about. They are watering down phrases to lessen the emotional impact. It's like the progression of shell shock -> battle fatigue -> post-traumatic stress disorder. At each step the term gets longer, sounds more technical, and loses emotional and descriptive power.

The implication is: the Dems want to bury this issue and not talk about it.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ok, i challenge you to convince ulti that climate change is, in fact, a gigantic problem and not a conspiracy theory made up by the left to have an excuse for more government control.

good luck.

Ulti? I feel like this is probably really easy since I thought he already believes climate change is real. I could be wrong.

Given those facts, no. Can I see myself suing them for repayment? If not, then I don't need a written promissory note.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...you think there's a higher than 0% chance republicans are going to do anything about climate change?

Yes, Republicans also live on this planet. But people have to be nice. You need to convince ordinary Republicans, not the politicians. Republican politicians are extremely responsive to Republican voters, unlike Democratic politicians who usually ignore their voters.

Inviso posted...

Wait, they actually held a vote on it? It just didn't get insta-filibustered?

This was the cloture vote. They needed 60 to get past the filibuster, but they didn't even get 50.

The Senate votes 51-49 against the legislation to codify Roe v. Wade. Well, then, it looks like abolishing the filibuster wouldn't change that one!

Kenri posted...

Sure. Now tell us some other things those people believe are straight up untrue and let's see if they seem like good judges of reality or not.

That's not the issue, is it? They believed that Trump cares about them, and that's what got Trump elected.

Which trait is most important to you?

Mitch is pledging to never end the filibuster for any issue including abortion. Good. Long live the filibuster.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Judicial Review is fairly common around the world, Plum. The US has a fairly unique system of it in terms of how vast our court systems are. I have no idea why the hell you think we shouldn't have it, its a fairly basic check on power

If you compare the US, which has judicial supremacy in that theoretically there is no one that can overrule the Supreme Court absent a constitutional amendment and the UK, which has parliamentary supremacy in that Parliament can pass a regular new law that overrules any judicial decision, in both cases the supreme institution exercises great care in not changing things too much. The system is stable because of that. If Parliament legislated like the Louisiana legislature apparently thinks it proper to do, the UK system would rapidly descend into chaos like the French Revolution. Same would happen if the Supreme Court started striking down laws or creating new ones because they felt like it.

Ultimately, the stability comes from the top institution recognizing that their authority flows directly from their caution and reasonableness.

LordoftheMorons posted...

More new unconstitutional shit being dreamt up every day by these state legislatures

https://twitter.com/emmanuelfelton/status/1523833745937252354?s=21

Well, they are probably not going to succeed in getting rid of judicial review. At least, they are too early.

DeepsPraw posted...

That's a representative democracy. Republic just means you don't have a king or queen.
The UK elects members to a parliament to decide issues, but they aren't a republic since they have a queen.

Right, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, which has its own option here.

DeepsPraw posted...

Why are you even drawing a distinction between democracies and republics in this case? The monarchy options presumably would already cover non-republican democracies.

I'll admit I'm not that familiar with ancient greco-roman government, and your explanation doesn't do enough to distinguish them.

The distinction is that in a democracy, the voters vote directly on all issues, whereas in a republic, they elect representatives to decide on the issues.

What's the best form of government?

Republic (oligarchy) means something like ancient Sparta or Rome, where either only a tiny percentage of residents were citizens entitled to vote, or the electoral structures were so slanted towards the few that a small percentage of citizens had a large majority of voting power.

Democracy (oligarchy) means something like ancient Athens where again, a small percentage of the population had voting rights.

Moonroof posted...

Holding is always the way to go, when its not a massive bull market like COVID made it during Stock Topics 1-20. Holding would have been good, but day trading was great.

It's the opposite actually. Holding in that bull market would have made you way more money. If you had held EVRI the first time you bought it and not sold for a year, how much would you have made?

In a bear market, day trading is beter than holding because you are sitting in cash and hence not losing money a lot of the time.

April inflation report coming Wednesday.

As far as BBIG vs. EVRI goes, I'd far rather invest in EVRI than BBIG based mostly on reading this topic, but I am down a lot this year so what do I know.

Lopen posted...

Try $6 to $2.10 actually

My point is everything is way down though

I'm investing I'm BBIG for a very specific catalyst that has been delayed and delayed and is now here. Of course I'm very confident it will go up this time. The clock is ticking. Naked short positions must be closed by the 18th, and normal short positions will likely be closed as well because it's extremely difficult to navigate maintaining that short position when you owe a spinoff dividend especially with a ton of options generating upward pressure. That's why OSTK went up so much in 2020 I'm the month or two after the dividend. Margin calls and full option chains being ITM every week for weeks and weeks.

You're investing in EVRI because "homie stock" do you even know why the price should go up or down? Do you even have any price ranges in your head for it? Like I'm not saying it's a bad stock but I'm saying your investing mindset is doomed to lose money unless you evolve it. We've been telling you and telling you and you've been ignoring us because you've made money (largely on plays others have suggested) but when any investment you make doesn't fly up within 2 days of when you buy it you're cooked. In a bear market you're going to lose a ton of money doing this.

I actually don't think Moonroof's strategy is doomed to lose money. He is in cash most of the time and invested in stocks occasionally which means his average return should be low, but positive. The problem is that he might see his strategy as safe while it actually carries substantial risk (since he goes all-in on one stock). But he also says he understands the risk, and it's been explained a million times, so I feel like he must understand.

Vote away!

To the extent that the census counts unborn children as persons in red states and not in blue states, that would of course increase the representation of the red states. They probably won't do that for purposes of the census since the census is purely federally run.

Seanchan posted...

Two thoughts I've been having about in light of what's happened:

Shouldn't a fetus/unborn child now count (have always counted?) as a person for things like Census counts?

Blue states will now have more women from red states coming in to get abortions. Why allow this, as a blue state? Couldn't you say "you must be a resident of this state to use services"? "Force" people to leave their dystopia. This is already done with stuff like in-state tuition for colleges.

I know, I know, these are silly, stupid questions. My brain was just journeying down the rabbit hole a bit.

This doesn't resolve the issue of whether an unborn (maybe pre-born is a better term?) child is legally a person. Presumably, red states would consider them persons and blue states would not.

As far as discriminating based on residency, probably, although I can't imagine any blue state would want to do that.

Let's please just have a circuit breaker day and get the capitulation over with.

Vote away!

masterplum posted...

I still just don't buy this at all. They are Supreme Court justices. They don't get impeached or reelected. Who the hell cares if they cave to public opinion

They care! This is likely not an easy case for Kavanaugh even if it is cut and dry for Alito and Thomas. He had weeks to come up with a way to narrow the opinion or punt on it; now if he does that the inference will be drawn that he caved to pressure.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Doubt were ever gonna find out who did it, but Im seeing some convincing arguments that it was actually the anti-choice people who stood to gain from this opinion leaking early:

https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754?s=21

The GOP also seems to be lining up in lockstep with the narrative that the important story here is the leak rather than the opinion itself (which is, of course, ridiculous).

While the author of this post indicates she is a former SCOTUS clerk and she would thus have some insider knowledge regarding this, I find her assertion that liberal clerks are more risk-averse than conservative clerks to be hard to believe. In society more broadly, a lot of liberals recently have acted as though they are immune from consequences, believing that society will back them up. On the conservative side, it's just Trump and a small number of far right people who are probably not the type who would become SCOTUS clerks acting that way.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

fair point but this is also what i have a problem with. like extha said, there's absolutely no reason to assume that chris's interpretation of the bible is more valid than that of the pro-life people. to say "i'm better at interpreting the bible than those people" is also arrogant.

also, if you admit that you're unable to interpret the bible 100% correctly, then how do you know that you interpret it in a better way than the pro-life people? what exactly are you basing this off of?

By reading it and thinking about it logically, the same way you interpret any document. Regarding abortion specifically, I do not think that the Bible actually addresses this issue more than tangentially. But generally, metrics I would use to evaluate interpretations include:

1. Is the interpretation of the specific passage consistent with the overarching message of the Bible?
2. Is the interpretation consistent with other statements in the Bible?
3. Under a postulated interpretation of a passage, does the passage express interesting ideas? There would be no need to explain boring stuff like "the sky is blue."
4. Is the interpretation anachronistic? For example, I have heard the prohibition against idolatry interpreted to mean children should watch less television. Televisions did not exist at the time the Old Testament was written, so this interpretation appears spurious.
5. Does the interpretation serve some non-religious purpose? For example, the television interpretation serves the purposes of parents who want their children to watch less television, but this is not a religious goal.
6. Does the interpretation fixate on linguistic nuances that don't exist in the original language? For example, if some debate turns on the precise meaning of a Latin word, that is probably missing the point because the Latin word is itself a translation.
7. Is the interpretation consistent with observation?
8. What are the logical consequences of accepting the interpretation? Would it lead to an absurdity?

yes, the ambiguity and different source documents having differences is what i was referring to. also, there's the apocrypha.

If you read the footnotes, you'll see there really aren't a lot of such differences. At least not in places that would dramatically affect the meaning. As far as the canon status of other documents from the ancient world, that's a different and much more complicated subject but you can generally work under some set of established guidelines such as agreeing that the Council of Nicaea got it right. I mean, in any modern political debate, there is basically no one arguing that Christianity supports their view by citing to an ancient document that was not included in the canon. So it is irrelevant.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

lol @ the notion that the simple observation that "i can totally correctly interpret a thousands of years old book that's been changed, edited and retranslated to death" being a pretty silly thing to say is an "insult."

you've seen me post long enough to know when i'm actually being insulting!

But you frequently criticize me for using terms like "the left" or "liberals" in a very general way, and defining the terms in a narrow and nebulous way so that they only refer to people I disagree with. So you are doing the same with Christians. I don't feel insulted but you usually have a strong reaction when I use words imprecisely so I thought I should say something.

I doubt Chris is saying that he can interpret the Bible 100% correctly. But he does believe that in this particular case, he is interpreting it better than the people he is criticizing. I feel very few Christians are arrogant enough to believe that they can interpret the Bible completely correctly. My own belief is that this is not a proper project to begin with since many parts of the Bible are intentionally ambiguous, as almost all good literature is. This is why it can generate thinking and discussion.

As far as editing and translation goes, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Modern translations of the Bible generally are directly translated from the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). They will even have footnotes in all the places where the translator isn't sure how to translate, there is ambiguity, or different ancient source documents have differences.

Dancedreamer posted...

I have an idea! Men should stop having sex. They're responsible for 100% of abortions. If a woman gets pregnant, she can only have one abortion. But a man can impregnate several women at once. Of course, we probably don't have to worry about you getting anyone pregnant. But you should be asking other men to abstain, rather than asking the women.

Shall we propose this to our Republican members of Congress? A blanket ban on sex except for procreation.

Seanchan posted...

And I guess gay rights, contraception, interracial marriage, etc. wouldn't be either, huh? I get the argument but where's the fucking line? If a woman's right to choose isn't the line there might as well be no fucking line.

The crazy part is, watch those "support abortion" numbers reverse within 3 months of the overturning. "Well, it's the law now, so I guess I'm okay with banning it."

Yes, they should destroy the filibuster for this. Of course he can't say it. You have to "leak" it. But you also have to have the votes. And I fucking guarantee they don't have the 50 votes. They'll be one dumb fuck senator whining about "decorum" or some shit as the walls figuratively come crumbling down.

Probably none of those are Biden's red lines. Those may be yours. His red line is more likely to be protecting the integrity of our republican form of government.

And it's not stupid. Remember the Democrats first eliminated the filibuster on judicial confirmations. Less than 10 years ago.

This isn't going to change the results of the midterm elections either. Conservatives have been working toward this for 50 years, with tremendous amounts of frustration over how little progress was shown for decades. Now it will be shown that the party strategy has worked.

I think Democrats will probably be okay if Trump is the Republican nominee in 2024 but without Trump, they really need to jettison the rich liberal wing of the party to succeed electorally.

Jakyl25 posted...

Something that is going to make me think he genuinely cares and is willing to put his Presidency and reputation on the line to fight for

This isn't the issue he's going to put his presidency on the line for.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

is there any other situation where you can get in trouble in one state for doing something thats illegal in that state, but its legal in the state you did it in? That seems like a thing that shouldnt be within their power

Haven't looked into this in depth but I'm pretty sure there's a "right to travel" between states.

Jakyl25 posted...

Sure; which is why it should have been enshrined into law by now instead of perilously resting reproductive rights on a flimsy ruling

Under what authority would Congress pass a law on this? Remember the federal Congress does not have general authority to pass laws on any topic - only on the topics assigned to them by the Constitution. They try to shoehorn in everything under the Commerce Clause, but that is a huge stretch and unlikely to fly.

Should we have a $500 bill?

Liberal, conservative, left, right, far left, far right, and progressive are all terms that have taken on so many meanings that you can't really tell who's being described by those terms anymore. At least not without knowing the speaker and context.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Okay I have taken the time to listen to the explanation of this study and I will say any liberal who answers for a conservative that 'justice isn't an important virtue' is braindead <_<

This is my problem with politics in general is I have more in common with a very nuanced, highly intelligent slightly conservative person (say lotm) than I do a braindead very progressive person! Like anyone who just screeches at the typical conservative voter (note voter not media etc) that they are the worst full stop has no understanding of how we got here.

While they lack understanding, the reason is they do not care. They do not care if any of their side's goals are achieved so there is no need to gain understanding. All they really want is the opportunity to exercise power over others.

Tom Bombadil posted...

I feel like there's a wide spectrum between "we need to name things after them and their voices count the most in politics 250 years later and let's build statues and only ever talk about how great they were and if anybody ever says anything negative about them they hate America" and "we need to pretend they never existed like the scum of the earth they are" that you're kinda leaving out here- most of us aren't asking for the latter, we just want to chill out a bit on the former. Which I think is about how we already treat ancient Rome and Egypt and stuff? History is history but I don't think we have to treat some of these people as infallible heroes the way we were brought up to do.

Slavery in the ancient world generally was not the same institution we are familiar with. It wasn't so racialized, and slaves had greater rights and legal personhood than they did in New World slavery from the 1500s on.

We got more than halfway to a circuit breaker day today.

Bernie's not an extremist (and at this point, when people use "far left" perjoratively it is not really referring to Bernie anymore - he isn't mean enough and actually cares about poor people) but he isn't running the party either. The centrist leadership allow the far left to run things as long as the centrists can protect the rich and corporations and keep their high offices and titles. That's their implicit deal.

TheRock1525 posted...

The irony being that if Heard can't find work, she couldn't possibly pay the $50 million she'd owe if found guilty. Her net worth isn't even a 20% of that.

She can declare bankruptcy.

What are the legal obligations for the ACLU in this case in regards to fact checking Amber's claims before publication? Are they potentially on the hook for anything if it is decided that Amber lied or did they do enough? (assuming they had to do anything at all)

There's an actual malice (actual knowledge of falsity or reckless indifference) standard so it's very hard for them to get in trouble. Unless there's evidence that they didn't believe Amber but published her anyway, which I doubt exists.

Biscuit, division of community property in California is usually not a taxable event. The idea is you are dividing property you already own (not income) so why would there be a tax to receive what is yours by right?