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
Right, because they're not interested in WHY corporations exist. They're just interested in their operation :)
Corporations, like insurance and ammonia production, play such a vital and underappreciated role in progressing society, enabling the creation of all sorts of things and promoting so many modern day efforts that would not otherwise be possible.
Even if people don't understand quite how they work.
I was going to compare them to sanitary sewers, but I think people DO recognize how important *those* are.
No, that's not historically or economically accurate.
Corporations mostly exist because I can't afford to buy a lathe on my own, but if we put our money together we could buy one together and start making things to sell. BUT, how do we trust each other? And how do we trust other strangers who like what we're doing and would throw in some cash to buy more lathes to expand the operation?
Corporations exist to give a legal framework for strangers pooling resources to accomplish some task, even if they don't know or trust each other.
House Republicans weren't just presenting them as victims, though, pointing out the messages where they looked all too happy to use government requests as excuses to do what they wanted to do.
This framing misses a lot of the story.
volkris
boosted
Elno has introduced a 4000 character limit for paid subscribers and the main reaction has been "Hell, no! Don't feed the trolls!" Most #Misskey and #Calckey instances, like blahaj.zone, have a 3000 character limit as standard, and no trolls. 💁♀️ No more 1/X #Mastodon & #Twitter threads, and posts are conviently collapsed so it doesn't effect the scrolling experience on your timeline ♥️ #fediverse #feditips
FWIW, another reason beside simple network effect is that lately I've been seeing so many posts with SO MANY hashtags that it's hard to wade through the annoying and uninteresting posts to get to interesting ones.
The Twitter algorithms at least help with that.
It seems to be getting worse here lately, having to scroll farther and farther to find anything interesting.
Well, I guess the key is that we need to be clear about what Fediverse does and doesn't promise.
It doesn't promise permanent operation of any particular instance, and it doesn't promise that history will be maintained forever.
You can rely on infrastructure for what it DOES promise; that just wasn't a feature it was promising.
(Personally, I really want people to realize that Fediverse doesn't promise privacy, as I think a lot of people are mislead on that, but that's a different topic)
@mmeadway @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The reason the tax limit on earnings exists is because benefits are tied to taxes, so without the limit the SSA would be paying even larger amounts out to rich people who we don't think need the help.
And no, this is the whole point: Congress DID NOT borrow surplus revenue from SSA, as that's not how the program is legally set up.
From the beginning SSA was legally required to deposit its surplus in the Treasury to be spent on other programs. That's not borrowing. It's depositing, and despite so many politicians' lies over the years (yes, I do believe they know better), that's how this was designed to operate.
I want to emphasize part of my point though: it's not voter INaction, but voter ACTION where we voters go to the polls and actively reelect representatives with their track records.
We don't just sit back and let it happen. We participate in the process of putting these individuals back in power even after they demonstrated how they would vote.
I don't know how many issues I see where friends will be excited to vote for some candidate even though I know that candidate contributed to some serious problem that the friend personally cares about.
We eagerly reelect the people who cause so many problems. Voter education is seriously lacking, but in the end, we get the government we vote for.
@InayaShujaat@mastodon.nz
Well I can't state it any better than the post did.
If I repeat the post I can only imagine you'd have the same reaction of being personally offended instead of recognizing the legitimate criticisms and observations of areas for improvement.
And really, your last line just illustrates one of the big failings that they tried to bring to light.
Well, the key is that the trade has to be made ahead of time.
Once the politician has written the no-string-attached check. maybe with an oversized check photo op, that horse has left the barn.
If the US government was stupid enough to hand Starlink a ton of cash without asking for enough in return, well, yes, the people we elect to the US government really are that stupid.
SpaceX and so many other companies benefit as we keep reelecting those who hand them those benefits.
@TCatInReality @bobwyman @lauren
Because we keep electing and reelecting people who are so proud of spending money regardless of where it goes and what it actually gets us.
If they had to actually hammer out such agreements, lots of companies wouldn't take them, and the politicians wouldn't be able to use the spending as bragging rights.
In the end, though, we reelect those people, so *shrug*
@InayaShujaat@mastodon.nz
I think you really miss what's going on in that post.
The person is highlighting the drawbacks of Mastodon, the challenges it would have to overcome, and instead of taking those criticisms to heart as something to address and be better about, well it's not helpful to overlook criticism for the sake of reading insult between the lines.
It's hard to see how a person or platform can grow and address problems when they're too busy getting upset at the messenger to consider the message.
Well no, there's an obvious way to report truthfully on events that are themselves false: report truthfully what happened.
Ignoring the events isn't a political error, but it allows falsehoods to fly under the radar and unchallenged where they grow.
@Runkleva @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The deposit of payroll taxes into the US Treasury to be spent on other programs was written into the original law that founded the scheme.
It's been there the whole time, even as politicians have lied to the public about how the program works.
The trustees administering the programs have been warning about this constantly, but nobody listens to them.
@mmeadway @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Every year the SSA's report warns of exactly this problem with funding, though. I'll quote directly from it:
"Social Security’s combined trust funds are projected to cover full payment of scheduled benefits on a timely basis until the trust fund reserves become depleted in 2035."
@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
By law the Social Security program takes money from workers, immediately hands it to other workers, and deposits the rest in the Treasury where it's immediately spent on other programs.
Assuming the workers are considered investors, that pretty clearly meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
What that statement overlooks is that the weak workforce participation rate takes the wind out of the sails of the headline unemployment rate as an indicator.
A TON of people are unemployed but not in the workforce, so they aren't being counted in that headline number.
Meanwhile, ALL inflation is bad. Calming down doesn't mean getting better, it means remaining bad. 6.5% remains bad and contributes to recession, or at least low economic performance.
That's not how inflation works.
Firstly, it's a line that doesn't make sense, no matter how much certain politicians repeat it. If corporations can simply price gouge they would have been doing it all along.
What, they just now decided to be greedy? No.
But more importantly, inflation is by definition about the money supply. Other market forces and events don't fall under that category, especially as they will come and go, but inflation is a lasting increase in the overall price level.
@darlulittledeer@universeodon.com
Oof, this comes across as creepy, with the tone of kids mindlessly echoing propaganda of an authoritarian leader.
It seems like things changed when Biden decided to start crossing a line and repeating already debunked theories about what their membership were up to.
At that point all bets are off.
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:
