volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
Netanyahu is smart enough to have seen it coming. I'm sure he did. He just rode the train as long as he could keep benefiting from it.
It's a good reason for states to avoid Medicaid for their healthcare service experiments.
States should be funding these services themselves. They have tax bases. Stop asking Trump for permission to do the right thing.
But this is still expanding the Court.
In any case, critically, this undermines one of the major roles of the Supreme Court: predictability.
If the random choice would change outcomes (or else why do it?) then the legal system would lose determinism that it relies on.
The justices of the court try to present coherent philosophies to guide the US legal system. This undermines that.
Really, the low hanging fruit of Court reform involves its interaction with the public since so many are completely wrong about what they actually rule. That's the first thing they need to address or else politicians will continue exploiting misunderstandings for political gain.
@BlueDot exactly, so you might as well just give up on this, yeah?
It's not about the Supreme Court but about the population electing a Republican to president.
It's a problem on the political side, not the legal side. Democrats have failed to put forward candidates more appealing than the low bar set by Republicans. You can't fix that by messing with the Court.
Well, just about any anti- anything extremism would be a domestic threat.
The issues are what they'd consider extreme and how proportionate their responses would be.
Scanning the Wired report, it doesn't look particularly interested in peaceful data-center protests, focusing instead on attacks against data centers, not just speaking up.
@jchaven he behaves that way because it gets him positive feedback from his support base.
I think a lot of world figures figured that out a long time ago and use it to manipulate him.
It seems like you're accepting a definite downside, making it harder for real readers to read, for the sake of an assumed upside, making assumptions about BOTH how AI would process the text and what it would do with it.
SOP for this administration.
They put on a show instead of prioritizing the real work.
@StevenSaus
Definitely not the same, but no, I didn't mix them up.
Control is at the core of government. Without some level of control a government is just a group of people talking to themselves.
So it sounds like this W Social offers government more opportunity for control, consistent with what they'd want.
@jd that's literally not what happened.
The issue wasn't the link to Hong Kong. The concern was that between here and there China would have a massive hand in the operation, which was seen as a security risk to all information being carried by the cable.
That it would link Hong Kong only makes that Chinese involvement more sensitive, not less.
@faab64 that's not why she says America has been embarrassed in the screenshot you shared...
@dschulten the Court's decision is explicitly narrow and wouldn't address a situation like that.
In fact, that the government failed to present a case along those lines was part of why the Court ruled as it did.
@humanhorseshoes You don't believe governments kind of like to have control over our communication platforms?
@meanmicio keep in mind that there's a huge difference between decline in academic freedom vs decline in government support for academics.
Less politics in academia is arguably a good thing.
This is reaching too far into conspiracy theory.
Sounds like W Social simply offers government more chance for, well, governance than something like Mastodon would.
No need to look for drama or personalities. Government wants to govern.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Unitary executive theory plagues the constitution of the federal government. This can be changed through amendment at any time, but until it is changed, it's a plague with no regard to political alignment.
It's easy to read too much into inaction.
Why didn't they act? It's looking for absence of reason here.
Why should the answer be an easy yes? Why are twelve member juries required and the six+ members established by law unconstitutional?
The Constitution doesn't specify twelve members, after all.
Seems pretty arguable.
@faab64 I don't think that's right at all. SO MUCH of this stuff happens exactly because Trump cares both about what his excited voters push him to do AND because it upsets the folks he wants to troll.
We have to recognize that to counter it.
It's a real red flag that this post had no context. We shouldn't just accept this sort of picture without a citation that we can scrutinize.
If you subscribe to Paramount Plus because of Star Trek, then you're already pretty shameless for supporting that affront to Star Trek :)
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
