65 thoughts on “January 9, 2018: Yawn”

  2. Anyone have experience buying / selling bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency? Several friends have made some shrewd trades, but I'm more than a little bit skeptical.

      1. I'm not super learned in this regard, and not particularly time-disposed to check out all those links right now, but... isn't black market stuff the only things bitcoin can be used for at this time? So their real value is all speculative? Like pogs or beanie babies, right?

        1. If the untility of money is primarily as a legitimized & widely accepted unit of account & medium of exchange, then yes, I think holders of cryptocurrency are basically limited to purchases of drugs, weapons, violence, and other forms of human misery at this time.

          1. There are numerous, primarily tech-related but "normal" places you can spend it. For example, I could pay for hosting of this basement using Bitcoin. Until very recently you could spend it on video games. Right now the biggest block is the absurdly high transaction fees. I am not sure if these regular transactions sum up to more than the unsavory ones or not.

            1. Point taken. Then again, if the primary value of a cryptocurrency at present is due to an intense speculation bubble, one does wonder why anyone would be using it to purchase any goods & services apart from those one can’t easily or legitimately transact with real money, which is where its original value lies.

              1. Possible anonymity.

                I'm guessing people here don't have a lot of familiarity with how it works, so I'll do a quick breakdown. Bitcoin is pseudoanonymous. The blockchain is available to everyone and it records every single transaction. Not until it's recorded into the blockchain (*handwave math/crypto* stuff) is it official and permanent. Every transaction being recorded is great for transparency but it also means everyone can watch the money flow and to where. The "where" is to addresses that are ideally large random* numbers.

                The anonymous part comes in if you acquired those Bitcoins anonymously. If you purchased the Bitcoins with a credit card then authorities can track it going to a company and the corresponding Bitcoins going somewhere. Once they know your address, the anonymity is gone. But, you can acquire them anonymously too, such as via mining or something similar. With good operational security, you can remain anonymous and partake in things. Those things can be good (repressive regime can't track you!) or not so much.

                * Fun fact, some people did this poorly. Either through bad luck (security holes) or stupidity, the random numbers they used were not that random. This allowed people to figure out how to factor the addresses and steal Bitcoins.

                1. So... traceable transactions but anonymous usage? Like cash, if all sellers reported their transactions to some database?

                  Huh.

                2. This project utilized machine learning to identify human traffickers’ cryptocurrency wallets via machine learning that groups trafficking ads & connects them with data from the blockchain & other info. Interesting stuff for the anonymity appeal.

                  Again, I think the main value of crypocurrency’s pseudoanonymity is rooted in the latitude that potential anonymity provides to do terrible stuff. Assuming I have a privacy concern about a pizza purchase related to hunger induced by certain consummed substances, I don’t need cryptocurrency to purchase that pizza if I don’t want my bank, card issuer, or the IRS to know I’m doing it. I just need to collect enough cash to make the purchase and visit the pizzeria in person to make my order. (Of course, in this theoretical world, it’s probably also how I obtained the hunger-inducing substances.) If I want a pizza with a crate full of assault weapons or harder substances underneath it, then I’ll probably want to use a cryptocurrency unless I have a money laundering operation.

                  1. I can see that those who prefer anonymity for non-criminal reasons to like this as well, or those who'd like to be able to go around authoritarian states.
                    Sure, some of those who prefer anonymity may be paranoids, but that's not criminal. And it gives them something to put their money in besides hoarding gold.

      1. /Trying to remember rules
        If that "block" wasn't goaltending, it was pretty close, right? I'm sure we could instant-replay that to show that it had begun its descent from its apex and/or was above the cylinder of the rim or something, right?
        (one of the reasons I quit following basketball is that I could not understand when some calls were made and when they weren't)

        1. It was close, but I dont think it was goaltending. That happens when the player swats the ball away when the ball is on its downward trajectory or if it hits the backboard.
          Usually, LeBron would get a block while chasing a player down on a breakaway like so https://youtu.be/kExlzEaOCYU

  5. Here's hoping my just-cancelled Citi credit card gets me into the presale for Steely Dan. I'm not sold on seeing a Becker-less Steely Dan, but I'm probably willing to give it a shot.

  6. At the risk of repeating myself for the second Cup in a row, the most recent episode of Effectively Wild includes an excellent discussion between Ben Lindbergh & Michael Baumann on the current offseason in a way that highlights the conventionality of pro-ownership framing of analysis & reporting on free agency & roster construction. Baumann’s perspective is one I’m going to add to my RSS reader, not only because I happen to agree with his politics, but because I need to complicate my relationship with pro baseball in a way that makes me more mindful of the tension between rooting for a specific organization while purporting to embrace a political view that puts people ahead of corporate entities.

    1. Have fun with that!

      At times I'm envious of national writers who no longer have rooting interest in laundry and are free to root for good stories, individual players, et cetera. My loyalty to the Twins really only makes sense from a tribalistic perspective. Honestly, if it weren't for the WGOM and the enjoyment of rooting with you guys for a common thing, I might be more of a casual fan by now.

      1. Counterpoint: rooting for laundry sure makes it easier to keep some enjoyment when individual players do things like assault women outside of an Apple store.

        1. If the laundry deals with those situations well.

          I'd love to just root for Little Leaguers as they mostly play for pure joy. But man, 10 year-olds just suck at baseball.

          1. I’d love to take more interest in competitions like the WBC, but trading capitalism for nationalism* doesn’t seem like any kind of improvement.

            * I think the most interesting thing to follow during the Olympics this winter will be how they stoke the resurgent & increasingly ugly furnaces of nationalism. Not something I’m rooting for, but it does seem like the most intensely nationalist moment on a global level in a long time.

            1. I enjoy watching the Olympics but I care zero cares about which nation wins what. I just want to watch amazing athletes compete.

              1. I'll agree to that. I'll root for the US in curling, though, but that's largely because it's a hyper-local interest and a good showing by the particular individuals involved could have a direct benefit to the club I play at.

                1. Makes sense.

                  And at least now days I can watch non US-centric events if I want (like Archery).

                2. I'll root for the US in curling
                  And then after the round-robin, you can root for one of the good teams!

                  1. And then after the round-robin, you can root for one of the good teams!

                    Ugh, this is all too true. (although mainly for the men's. The women might actually have a shot at advancing.)

                    2. Oh yeah, they were definitely both bad. It's basically the same men's team, but it's a totally different women's team and they are much, much better than those prior teams.

                    4. Debbie McCormick, perhaps? I think she's the only one still in the area. She is quite friendly, and also we destroyed her team in the third even final in eau Claire this past weekend. (although her teammates were her friends and not Olympians.)

              2. I think its easy to say that in the U.S., but in much smaller nations (and even in the U.S., particularly within certain communities - see: Cheaptoy below) there are certainly going to be particular contests where the outcome is cared about very much. I can't begrudge that.

                Indeed, I think there's a worthy distinction between Nationalism and national pride, the later of which is a good thing (and, if it is honest and well-founded, would also permit national shame, I suppose). And to that extent, I want the athletes from the U.S. to give me cause for national pride (and not shame. See: Lochte, Ryan.).

      2. The group of folks here has undoubtedly buoyed my interest in baseball through some rough patches.

        An added layer in the tension between rooting for an organization & prioritizing people is the collaborative achievement that success in baseball represents. While the zombie organization ultimately claims ownership of any achievements, the achievement really is produced by the combined accomplishment & skill of a ton of people — the players, certainly, but also the manager & coaches, the brain trust that constructed the team, the scouts & player development people in the farm system, & people who make the entire enterprise possible (the groundskeeper & crew, for example). The entity that signs all their cheques should be the least interesting component of all this, even if it is the umbrella under which they all work.

        At the same time, I quit getting much enjoyment from player-centric storylines after McGwire/Sosa/Bonds/Clemens, and the Sanó situation is a reminder to be wary of becoming a fan of any specific person. I suppose I could root for performances (single game, season-length, or career length), but that doesn't carry the same narrative appeal for me. Perhaps I should think more about the styles of play within the game I find most appealing (catchers with excellent baserunning, for example), then follow the accomplishments of the active practitioners of those styles.

        1. I will root for actual players based on their athletic accomplishments now, so I'm less disappointed if they do something dumb like say Sandy Hook never happened. Now Sano will be difficult to root for now. Not sure where my line is.

        2. Honest question: does someone of impeccable off-field character cause you to enjoy the game more (sort of the opposite of the Sano effect)?

          1. In the sense that it’s nice to witness the success of someone who (to the best of our perception) seems to be a legitimately good person (say, Jim Thome or Roberto Clemente), then I suppose I do derive some enjoyment from that, although I try to be mindful that it’s dangerous to start building statues. I can’t say that I’d enjoy watching Mauer rope a double in a specific situation more just because he seems like he’s one of the Good Guys, but since I know the inverse is true (feeling schadenfreude from poor performances by players with significant personal issues*), I suppose I can’t rule it out, either.

            In general, post-Kirby I’ve tried to be very judicious about lumping players into the Good Guy group, mainly trying to make that designation a Lifetime Achievement Award that actually means something. Thome seems well on the path there, at least within the bounds of what I know about him. Doesn’t mean anyone in that group was/is perfect (including Clemente, but also Killebrew, Tony O., Jackie Robinson, and so on), but it does mean you can point to a sincere dedication to living a good life that gave back exponentially more than it took. (I don’t have an exact equation in mind, but I think “the love you take is equal to the love you make” falls a few orders of magnitude short of accurate.)

      1. This reminds me of one of my sailor grandpa’s favorite jokes: “Your great-great-great grandfather was an admiral named Tuna. [beat] They called him ‘the Chicken of the Sea.’”

        1. my best buddy (and later, Best Man) from undergrad used to say* "Face your problems like a man: run away."

          *that was version two. Version one was "Face your problems like a man: blame your tools."

    5. Aw, nuts. I didn't realize it was going to be that cold. The Boy's troop is planning a cabin campout and skiing Wild Mountain.
      Wanted to take the little sister to meet up with them and learn how to ski...but that's pretty chilly.

      1. HPR got in a Dogsledding experience with his troop last weekend on apparently the one opportunity for not-too-cold, not-too-warm weather.

    6. OFFS. Below zero, above freezing, then below zero again. Can't we just get some highs in the teens and twenties for a stretch? Maybe a few inches of snow?

      1. I have yet to shovel my driveway this winter, and my snowblower hasn't had gas in the tank since last April. We've only had one real cold spell and a couple of shorter snaps. I'm wondering if La Niña might be a factor? The NOAA update due in a couple of days might shed some light.

            1. Back in your day, the Polar Vortex stayed where it belonged instead of migrating to the US so much.

          2. I'm down for that. I'm gonna be mighty pissed if my snowblower sits in the garage all winter again.

Comments are closed.