@freemo Well, would you agree that 2 inches or even 5 cm is more intuitive than 50 mm? Many of the same reasons, I'd say.

One is a matter of scaling of error. If your perception of any unit is off by a bit, then the more of the unit that you stack up stacks up those errors too.

You might intuitively know about how big a cm is and about how big an inch is, but once you start stacking them, the errors add up.

Conservative media loves to repeat that the NY court imposed improper penalties against Trump’s businesses considering that they were already being overseen by a court appointed official that would keep them from doing wrong.

Problem is, the overseer reported to the court that they kept doing wrong.

It’s a case where the details swing the superficial claim in the other direction.

@freemo you say proper precision and grading, but that's the whole point: in so many real world applications we find that the precision and grading isn't the most convenient for the work in front of us.

Say you're aligning a platform by eye, see that you need to raise it by about the length of your thumb, so you call out to the lift operator to raise it by a quantized amount.

"Two inches" happens to be a pretty convenient call out rather than "five centimeters" or, heaven forbid, "fifty millimeters."

It's simply more intuitive at common human scales.

Or, to put it another way, they're big and bulky, which is perfect for dealing with big and bulky human scale tasks!

@Beachbum yes, that sort of conspiracy theory is sadly often promoted these days, but it doesn’t stand considering how the US government is actually designed and functions and has non-optional features in place specifically to make such a thing impossible.

As we saw throughout Trump’s first term.

It’s simply not an option on the table, despite sensational claims by interests who benefit from promoting such stories.

@peltast the court documents say otherwise, and the agencies themselves say they didn’t follow those practices.

Rather they say it doesn’t matter that they didn’t follow them.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether the drug is actually safe, only that the safety rules were or weren’t followed.

No harm no foul only goes so far when it applies to legal compliance.

@freemo as we apply measurements, we disagree :)

We find that, for example, inches are scaled far better for so many projects than cm or mm, in the same way that degrees F are scaled better for human application than degrees C or K.

When it comes down to something ranging in size from around a baseball up to a table leg--roughly human sized things--the royal feet units are simply more practical, so we prefer them.

They make more practical sense.

@asmodai the problem with this sort of claim is that the Supreme Court tends to be applying the rules that were in fact achieved through the elected branches of government.

Well, the legislatures specifically.

@freemo meh, plenty of us are proud to use royal feet over scientific meters because they just make more sense for the particular application.

We proudly use the better tool rather than following the crowd!

So many get wrong, and so many misreport, that the is to rule on the safety of mifepristone. It is not.

The Court has neither the expertise, the legal jurisdiction, nor the interest in making such a determination. It’s absolutely not what the Court is doing.

Instead, what the Court is to rule on is specifically the legal questions surrounding whether the executive branch followed legal procedures as it acted.

It seems that the FDA didn’t follow the legal process and botched this, and we should be holding executive branch officials responsible for their failure there.

All of the drama protesting the Court misplaces the real blame and lets those responsible off the hook, and is so counterproductive to the goals of those protesters.

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/

@Linux not everything is about getting follows.

Sometimes we share content because it’s simply worthwhile in its own right, regardless of where it’s coming from.

@BeAware exactly, and that’s what bothers me so much, a lack of transparency for users to make up their own minds.

There are far too many users on here posting content under the belief that it’s much more private and safeguarded than it actually is, that end up surprised to hear how little control they actually have.

I see it almost every day, and it really worries me.

@vetehinen yeah, after your reply I went back and skimimed the docs again, and I think you’re right.

It looks like BlueSky emphasizes giving users control over their content and yet admits that they don’t think they can really do anything to enforce this.

@BeAware right, if you form a splinter Fediverse made up of only instances that are 100% trustworthy, that have all implemented security policies to lock down ways their users might be using their services, then you can block this from happening.

But that seems pretty unrealistic to the way people are imagining Fediverse growing.

A single bad acting instance in the whitelisted network, or a single hacked instance, is all it takes to undermine that firewall.

@erik

@Hyolobrika yeah, there are a few other platforms that didn’t have these problems.

IMO, the key is focusing on users instead of instances. ActivityPub chose to put the control in the hand of instances instead of users, but other platforms are user-first.

That makes the difference.

@erik even if you block your instance from threads.net, the way the protocol works your content can still make its way to them.

Again, I think it’s really important that users realize how little control they have over content on this platform. Simple blocking like that doesn’t solve the problem, and you remain vulnerable.

@Hyolobrika @BeAware

@stargazer oh quite the contrary, it IS what Fediverse was meant to be.

At its core Fediverse was programmed to put content out there without the control of authors. I criticize them for those design decisions, but they were made, and it is what it is.

Fediverse was designed so that all content is fair game. You don’t even need to interact with Threads for them to get your content–ActivityPub will happily broadcast it into their datastores.

It’s critical that users realize that if they want to keep using Fediverse.

@jupiter_rowland

I’d take it one step farther and say that even if Threads were to botch the standard like Mastodon, I trust the professional engineers at Threads to do a better job than what I’ve seen coming out of Mastodon’s developers.

EVEN IF Threads is going to be a new boss of the Fediverse, which I don’t think realistic, there’s a good chance that would be an improvement.

volkris boosted

The same thing that Threads might allegedly do to Mastodon is apparently absolutely desirable when Mastodon does it to the rest of the Fediverse; CW: long (914 characters), Fediverse meta, non-Mastodon Fediverse meta, Threads/Meta/Facebook/Zuckerberg 

Threads might overrun the Fediverse with its own rules, its own culture and its own non-standard technology, simply by being the biggest project in the Fediverse and making itself the de-facto Fediverse standard by sheer numbers. Mastodon users are up in arms against it.

Mastodon itself has been doing all these very same things to the rest of the Fediverse ever since 2016. Largely the very same Mastodon users who are raging against Threads now are not only cheering on Mastodon forcing its ways and its non-standard stuff upon everything that isn't Mastodon, but demanding more of it.

Just for the record: Mastodon was not here first. At least Friendica, Hubzilla and Pleroma were, in this order. And Hubzilla even had ActivityPub before Mastodon.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Meta #Threads #Hypocrisy #DoubleStandard

@MugsysRapSheet reporting has it that it’s not so much Bibi snubbing Biden as both politicians having reasons to keep distance from the other.

For Biden to meet with Bibi or even have a close functional relationship with him would put Biden at odds with anti-Israeli communities whose votes he needs.

This is a rather pragmatic split for both politicians.

@junesim63 never confuse a president with the country. He’s merely the politician in charge of the administration of one of three branches of one of countless governments.

So the president, facing troubling poll numbers in a few key communities, is making a symbolic move to shore them up.

That’s hardly the US getting worried about Gaza. That’s one person, Biden, getting worried about his own future.

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.