RichardGibbons

Agreed. But if the broader cross-section actually likes its leaders, it's their democratic right to effectively prop their sword up against a rock and then dive onto it.

100% disagree with this, after watching hockey for 40 years. Icing races aren't particularly exciting, and I have no desire to see someone suffer a season- or career-ending injury on a meaningful play, let alone a meaningless play (and 98% of the time it was meaningless). It's just really stupid to have arguably the most dangerous part of hockey be something that's relatively meaningless. No-touch icing has been a rule change without any downside, as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, it's also conceivable that the Europeans who fly around the world to watch a two-hour soccer game aren't actually representing a broad cross-section of European population. (But, I think it's mostly true that politicians are much more responsible for international conflict than the underlying populations. I think most people get along when you put them in a room together, and a large part of being a successful politician these days seems to be finding cracks and fomenting division.)

I think a counterparty can hedge for a guaranteed profit (as long as Fairfax remains solvent)? Because of that, I think the answer is almost certainly "yes".

I thought your reasoning was correct, then it occurred to me that, if they're bumping up against the 10% limit, they might not want to close the positions, because they don't have the capacity available to buy back the shares. In that scenario, if you pretend the TRS is approximately like a buy back if you squint, then the volume of shares the company can acquire through the combo of a maximum 10% buyback and maintaining the TRS is effectively higher than the combo of a maximum 10% buyback and closing the TRS (while being unable to buy back shares equivalent to the TRS because of the 10% limit.)

Yeah, it's also true that the rest of the world is basically drafting behind American innovation, kind of like taking advantage of a consumer surplus. Essentially, USA has a system that encourages innovation, growth, and hard work, and that leads to new discoveries that benefit humankind, not just Americans. In the extreme case, Americans often develop drugs and medical technologies that end up being priced lower in many countries than they are in the USA. IMO, this drafting off the USA helps many countries, including most in Europe, I think, maintain a significantly higher standard of living than they would otherwise.

I've started thinking this through, but am still early in the process. I'm a Gen Xer. IMO, the children of my generation have bigger opportunities than my generation, but have fewer and are in a more difficult world financially. So, I'm thinking about how much extra money those kids would need to level the playing field with Gen X, and what I can do to directly address that issue with the young people I know who don't have high-income parents.

Yep. The thing I wonder about is whether there is a deliberate "overload" strategy going on, or if it's just a side effect of the way things happen these days. Like, it's pretty clear that the "never let a crisis go to waste" thing from decades back was and is a deliberate strategy, and I'm wondering if overload is too.

Yeah, it's interesting how often you and I align (though you probably don't know this because I post rarely.) I find your stock picks way more aligned with my thought process than anyone else here--there's maybe a 60% chance of me being intrigued by any given company you post about. At this point, it's become interesting to me seeing the places we don't align. (When it comes to investing, I think it's less the companies that we find interesting, and more that 1) I typically hold shares longer, 2) I don't think you do options much, and 3) you're better and more thoughtful at analysis than me.)

This is the straw man that you're attempting to sneak in to justify your silly position. They are lobbying to enforce the rules that remove players from the game not to ensure that they don't have to compete so hard, but rather to win. This is what professional sports is about--not players attempting to maximize their laziness. But simply winning. Winning. (Well, and also about money.) It's a really difficult position that you've taken, asserting that professional athletes don't care enough about winning to fight for every advantage, particularly in the peak contest of their sport that comes around maybe 4 times in their career. It's really hard to fade all the things professional athletes do for an edge (Body-destroying steroids! Dangerous and risky play! Deliberately injuring opponents! Shameful acting!), while simultaneously asserting that them asking that the rules be enforced would be a step too far for them.

I take it you've never played competitive sports then. In competitive sports, pretty well everyone both wants and takes any competitive advantage that they have. That's why the things you are saying are silly, because they're so obviously incorrect, and pretty well everyone who even watches sports knows it.

Yeah, it deliberately makes zero sense--it's meta reasoning. Basically, if you can call people cowardly using a really silly argument for not following the rules, then I kind of think everyone should get to play that game!

Yeah, I feel like USA is being super cowardly by not lobbying FIFA to allow Belgium to have 20 players on the field versus the USA's 11. Why don't they want to play against best others have to offer?

The second penalty was a terrible call IMO (speaking as someone who watches football on average for about 4 weeks every two years and is therefore clearly an expert.) I suspect the second penalty wouldn't have been a penalty shot except that the game was nearly over and Norway had a multi-goal lead.

People have given you countless specifics for the last year and a half. And longer, really. The fact that you are deciding to ignore all of them is on you, not them. It isn't a good look, and is the primary thing that pushes me left--I don't want to be associated with the side that is most eager to pretend reality isn't real. The left doesn't actually understand how the world works, but is reasonably close to intellectually honest when talking politics. The right prides itself of being intellectually dishonest, as if reality doesn't matter.

To make it clear, I'm fully against fascism. I don't know WTF antifa actually is, because it seems like a Schrodinger's word. Like, say, "feminism" or "fascism" or "liberalism", the meaning of antifa seems to change based on the convenience of whoever's using it. I think politically, theoretically, you and are on the same side of centre--I'm basically a classical liberal. As such, I believe in things like freedom of speech, civil liberties, free markets, and low levels of regulation. I think the government should interfere with free markets largely in areas where there's good evidence that the benefits significantly outweigh the downside (universal healthcare with private and public components and anti-trust are the two that immediately come to mind for me.) Right now, the challenge for me is that in Canada, the left wing has shifted us way left, far from sensible classical liberal policies,and I get the sense that the same is true of Europe. The USA is doing the exact same thing from the opposite side. All of these are toxic trends toward authoritarianism, just from different sides. That's my point that polarization is terrible--it allows both sides to push us toward authoritarianism by saying that they're doing it to fight back against the evil people on the other side.

Forget delay--if a majority of miners collaborate, the game is completely over. They can simply take all your bitcoin. Geographical jurisdiction isn't mutually exclusive with owning bitcoin. If you're concerned, you're allowed both a second passport and own bitcoin.

It's as I said--you support obvious political repression, abandon your support of free speech and the right to bear arms, because it's your side doing the persecuting. Everyone sees it. If you lived in North Korea, you'd be strenuously claiming Kim Jong Il had a round of golf with 11 holes-in-one because there were many witnesses.

Huh. I thought you agreed with the right to bear arms. And what does that have to do with a dude moving pamphlets? Did he have a gun? Did he shoot someone? To summarize your argument, you're saying that a dude who transports "free speech" deserves 30 years in prison because people he knew had guns. When I say, "I think it's largely because of political polarization--because everyone's fine with "their side" doing it to screw the other side," your reaction is exactly what I was referring to. Maybe next time, just say, "But it was Republicans persecuting the people, so it's okay." That'll save some typing. As I say, this is all normalizing President AOC doing whatever she wants to do.

Ah yes, the crime of having different opinions than the government, so being labelled a terrorist, and persecuted. When I say, "I think it's largely because of political polarization--because everyone's fine with "their side" doing it to screw the other side," your reaction is exactly what I was referring to. You should be prepared for President AOC to arrest you for the things you've posted here that she'll claim are fascist and incitement to terrorism.

(Gonna assume that this is now a political thread, since it's acting that way. If it isn't, let me know and I'll delete this.) Well, you can do it in the USA until you get 30 years in jail for distributing free speech. Free speech is under attack everywhere in the western world. I think it's largely because of political polarization--because everyone's fine with "their side" doing it to screw the other side. It's very short-sighted. Where I live, Canada, is certainly among the worst.

This is one of my favourite throw-away lines I've heard this year...

Oh wow, you're taking this way too personally. I was just trying to say nicely that to talk about military power at all is an indication of a lack of insight, because it's completely obvious to everyone that USA has a bigger military than everyone else on the planet by several times, and, to non-Americans, it's also obvious that the military victory is only the first step. Like, what person on here thinks that the Canadian military could hold off the American military? (Please put up your hand if yo do.) And what person on here thinks that someone exists on CoBaF who needs to be informed in detail that that's the case? To preempt future discussions, it's also not necessary to explain to people on CoBaF that Elon Musk has a bigger net worth than the average meth addict, or that most humans live closer to Washington DC than Alpha Centauri. Yes, even the Russians! (Though if you are inclined to make those explanations, I respectfully request links supporting each of your assertions.)

I'm having a poor year, up about 6%. The biggest detractor has been software stocks I bought back in December.

I mean, yeah, obviously. The problem isn't winning the war. It's the next 50 years with a 5500 mile border, potentially 40 million newly-minted terrorists, largely indistinguishable from Americans, many of who would view the Geneva Conventions as naive suggestions. It is super strange how Americans keep on believing that "winning the war" is the end of things, not the beginning. When was the last time that was true? WW 2 or Korea?