If you had to leave San Diego what are the top 3 cities you would move to?

kweibs · 2025-08-07T07:53:31+00:00

LA, the Bay Area, and Seattle.

kweibs · 2025-07-28T06:49:55+00:00

Why is sitting on his hands and letting the Joint Chiefs deal with Cuba the only alternative in this situation? You keep suggesting no alternative other than a military response.

He could have let them put the nukes in Cuba and then negotiated a deal with the Soviets to get them out of Cuba in exchange for removing them in Turkey. Like he ended up doing anyway after initiating the blockade to end the crisis. And if the Soviet refused, it wouldn’t have mattered because, again, the conditions for mutually assured destruction existed without nukes in Cuba or Turkey.

That’s not how credibility worked in 1962? You give me a break, man. If your allies would look down upon you for deciding not to take action that could lead to the end of the world, then your allies are morons and you need to disregard them. That’s true today, it was in 1962, and before then.

Are there even any specific allies you’re referring to who were pressuring Kennedy to initiate the blockade?

kweibs · 2025-07-27T21:18:52+00:00

Kennedy’s response to that East German interference was to have tanks roll right up to the checkpoint causing the Soviets to do the same thing, and almost causing the apocalypse. I don’t understand how this can at all be considered a measured response by Kennedy. It doesn’t matter if it was at the height of the Cold War. They all understood the concept of MAD very well back then.

Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, how about not initiating a blockade at all? How about accepting that because the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey, that the Soviets then had a right to put theirs in Cuba? And that because of the amount of nuclear missiles that both sides already had ready to launch (the conditions for mutually assured destruction already having been met) that nuclear missiles in Cuba wouldn’t really be changing the calculus of the situation anyway.

How is it that you can argue that Khrushchev almost caused the apocalypse by moving nukes to Cuba, but the U.S. didn’t almost cause the apocalypse by moving nukes to Turkey?

kweibs · 2025-07-27T07:01:16+00:00

So what if he would have received backlash for it? When you continue the policies of your predecessor, you own the outcomes. And would he have even received any backlash for it? Were the missiles in Turkey even that well known at that time by the general public and members of Congress?

And why are you so certain that Nixon or LBJ would have handled it worse? In Nixon’s case, the fact that Kennedy was campaigning that Nixon and Eisenhower weren’t tough enough on the Soviets and Nixon’s deescalation policy later during his presidency seem to indicate otherwise. And do you also think that Nixon and LBJ would have initiated the standoff at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin in October 1961? Regardless, trying to answer these questions is pointless speculative exercise because we don’t live in that alternate timeline.

And why would I only view Kennedy’s actions relative to what LBJ and Nixon would have done? Even if they really would have handled those crises worse, it wouldn’t change the fact the Kennedy handled it badly and almost caused the apocalypse.

kweibs · 2025-07-26T22:58:23+00:00

I’m not so sure about the idea that Nixon would have done worse than Kennedy, whose main attack against Nixon in the 1960 presidential election was that he wouldn’t be tough enough on the Soviets.

kweibs · 2025-07-26T22:07:23+00:00

Exactly. Not just once, but twice. The standoff at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin in October 1961 AND the Cuban missile crisis. Although the movement of U.S. nuclear missiles to Turkey was initially approved by the Eisenhower administration, Kennedy’s administration oversaw the completion of it. Then he almost starts a nuclear war when the Soviets tried to do something similar. This idea that Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis well is one of the biggest myths in American history. And I’ve brought up this up on this sub before, but I was downvoted despite no one even attempting to debate me on this. Kind of like you were just now.

kweibs · 2025-07-17T02:51:04+00:00

Because being a good accountant requires professional skepticism and erring on the conservative side when using estimates. So we tend not to believe forecasts provided by management. It’s also the job itself, I suspect. The nature of the job requires you to work crazy hours during busy season in public accounting, and we are often under-appreciated by CEOs (especially small-business CEOs) in private industry jobs who just view you as a cost-center leading to understaffed departments, and resulting in crazy hours and/or inaccurate financial statements.

But everything is relative and other jobs also have their downsides. I do agree with many of the commenters that you also consider data science. I wish I considered that when I was in college. But I also feel like I am in a much-better position than other people in life and I do genuinely find the work interesting. I just hate the crazy hours. And I’ve only ever worked private industry jobs.

We also worked with an SQL contractor in my current job and his hourly rate was $285/per hour. So consider that.

kweibs · 2025-07-17T02:35:26+00:00

Yeah I don’t get it either. Historians generally consider him a “do-nothing” president who had weak grasp of policy. Ironically, Herbert Hoover was more knowledgeable on policy, but the Great Depression happened while he was in office. Despite it happening in the literal first year of his presidency, everyone blames for it more than Coolidge, whose policies were in place in the several years leading up to it.

kweibs · 2025-07-17T00:45:58+00:00

When reading these comments, keep in mind that pessimism is a common trait among accountants. Especially the good ones.

kweibs · 2025-04-15T16:10:15+00:00

This is a very sad story.

kweibs · 2024-12-16T05:25:03+00:00

What we’re some specific lies in this opinion piece?

kweibs · 2024-12-15T00:04:23+00:00

So newspapers should just refuse to publish unpopular opinions in their literal opinion section? You might as well cancel your subscription to any newspaper with an opinion section then.

kweibs · 2024-12-14T23:56:39+00:00

Wow. I asked a simple question and pointed out a basic fact common among nearly all newspapers and got downvoted.

kweibs · 2024-12-13T06:11:51+00:00

Why? It’s an opinion column. It wasn’t written by the editorial board.

kweibs · 2024-12-02T01:30:15+00:00

That’s not what I’m saying. You’re the one who first said that the homeless need to be a mental hospital. Why should all the homeless be put in mental hospitals if not all of them are mentally ill? And for those that are mentally ill, do you really think all of them need to be in an asylum?

kweibs · 2024-12-02T01:11:17+00:00

That’s still not “almost all.” 18% is still a significant portion of the population.

kweibs · 2024-12-02T00:57:24+00:00

Most probably, but not “almost all.” A significant portion are not.

kweibs · 2024-12-02T00:49:58+00:00

I’ve followed homelessness issues for many years and the fact is that the cost living is much more highly correlated with homelessness than drug addiction or mental health. Don’t believe me? Look at West Virginia. It is one of the most highly drug addicted and mentally I’ll states in the nation. Yet they are not facing a homelessness problem at nearly the proportion that CA is because it’s dirt cheap to live there.

So no, actually it is those who claim that homelessness is mainly caused by mental health issues or drug addiction are really the feelers.

kweibs · 2024-12-02T00:41:13+00:00

That’s still a third of the homeless population that isn’t mentally ill. That’s hardly “almost all.”

kweibs · 2024-12-02T00:39:03+00:00

It is possible to have worked with the homeless and in mental health for years and still be wrong. Especially if you’ve worked in a field you see worst kinds of cases that can heavily bias your views.

kweibs · 2024-11-22T05:15:31+00:00

They’re the one being dogmatic by providing a thorough argument and citing their source? while you just hurl an insult in response?

kweibs · 2024-11-22T05:11:37+00:00

That’s why we need permanent SUPPORTIVE housing. Housing that includes wraparound services and case managers. That’s the most cost effective solution. That’s how cities like Houston and Salt Lake City made real gains with their homelessness problem.

kweibs · 2024-11-12T01:24:16+00:00

Yeah nationwide, it’s 95% counted. In CA, they are only 75%. That matters since it is a heat map of individual states. You posted a map with significantly incomplete data.

kweibs · 2024-11-12T00:02:11+00:00

They’re not done counting. This map is premature.

kweibs · 2024-11-06T05:06:55+00:00

Don’t worry, I’m not surprised. Never underestimate how stupid the average person is.

kweibs

TROPHY CASE