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
U.S. Politics, Walgreens won't sell abortion meds even where it's legal
In the US there are strong federal regulations surrounding the sale of meds like this, so it can't really be reduced to state by state legality.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by server and client, I only use the web interface, so my client is the server? :)
Fediverse is built on ActivityPub protocol, which allows people to send content around as they wish without limits on exactly what sort of content it is.
So it's really up to different programs like Mastodon, Pleroma, and whatever else to work out what to send around and how to render it to the screen.
Third party clients do add yet another layer to that, though.
No, it's like saying if you want to know what the opinion said then we can read the opinion.
So it's the opposite.
If you believe that the wealthy have been enriched lately, alright, what's the mechanism that made that happen? CU? But if we actually look at what CU said we can see that it debunks the idea of that ruling being the mechanism since it specifically and explicitly works to undermine the influence of the wealthy.
The Citizens United ruling itself is anti-wealthy.
Any proposed mechanism premised on the opposite runs up against the text of the ruling itself, which is public and available for us all to read.
For anyone that cares to, at least.
Picard S1 spoiler
Yes! Plus, and I think it's been long enough for a spoiler here, but to have Picard kill Data is... well that's all you have to say.
What would possess the show runners to think that would be OK?
And then to kill off Picard in the show Picard?
What's wrong with those people?
I've heard that from a person or two, but really, Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks have ruined the franchise for me. I'm just numb to it now, have wandered off, and just don't care any more.
I feel like even if I try out SNW I'm just going to be disappointed someday when it crosses over into the mess that is the other shows.
So long as they keep putting out crap like Picard, no series is safe.
@KaidaFox, I'd say Lower Decks includes exactly the elements that @Livingmarble calls out, especially the highly trained part.
The characters bumbled through arguing among each other with a completely collapsed chain of command to accidentally arrive at solutions despite their incompetence, cracking bad jokes all along instead of seriously exploring the human condition and such.
But mainly, the cartoon simply failed at being particularly funny or clever.
I know multiple people that I showed it to had the same reaction I did: how did not a single joke from the whole episode land?
volkris
boosted
I think it's brave of PICARD to take the things that define STAR TREK, like the idea of crews of highly trained utopians using science and diplomacy to solve problems in a bright and shiny future, and just completely jettison all that to focus on people bickering in various underlit locations.
Well, based on what do you claim it's not a currency?
I mean, people use it just like any other currency, so how do you base your claim that it's not one?
But we can read CU for ourselves. We don't need to turn to proxies to figure out what was in the ruling.
You know what speaks loudest about what the opinion said? The opinion.
We don't have to guess about it. Here it is.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep558/usrep558310/usrep558310.pdf
Again, this is coming from the trustees running the program.
Money WILL run out because even though it's always coming in, it's also always going out, and with it always going out faster than it's always coming in, the math doesn't work.
It's like, a person can go broke even though they're working. Sure, there's money coming in, but if the debts are higher than the income, they still run out of money.
SS bases payouts on what's been paid in, so if you raise the max for paying in that also increases the expenses, which is why that cap exists in the first place, to keep the rich from collecting more from the program.
Daily Beast is a horribly biased outlet. You shouldn't trust it for information.
@FinchHaven@mastodon.sdf.org @GottaLaff
When a person makes a claim but is uninterested in providing any evidence for the claim, the best response is just to ignore it.
So that's really your option. If you're not interested in supporting your own perspective, that's fine. But keep in mind that at that point you're just whistling into the wind.
If you're not interested in convincing anybody over to your point of view, or showing that your point of view has any basis in reality at all, then you're doing it right.
Just be sure that's what you're going for.
So that's pretty much what I was talking about.
As Kennedy wrote in the CU opinion, a huge motivation for him was taking power away from the already powerful, leveling the playing field.
Again, yes I know there has been so much backwards reporting about the opinion, but if you actually go read the opinion you'll see just how backwards the reporting has been, and that CU explicitly recognized your concern and was emphatically all about taking down the already powerful.
Whether you think leveling the playing field is good or bad is a separate issue.
Yes, loan forgiveness is certainly an option that Congress should consider.
The problem is that so far Congress has gone the opposite direction, relying on the loan collection to fund government.
There's also the issue that when presidents act without going through Congress, it has the side effect of relieving Congress from having to consider the idea.
We could have had Congress enact loan forgiveness in the last couple of years, but since the president announced he was going to do it unilaterally that saved Congress from having to consider it.
No, Bitcoin is just a currency, and like any other currency it can be used for Ponzi schemes, but to say that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme is just as wrong as saying dollars are a Ponzi scheme merely because Ponzi schemers can use them for that.
It's misunderstanding what Bitcoin is.
Congress did pass a bill. One dispute is that the bill Congress passed didn't authorize the forgiveness of loans, and furthermore, Congress went on to later spend money based on those loans being collected.
If the president unilaterally forgives those loans then the money to fund government programs will be missing from the budget.
@GottaLaff @FinchHaven@mastodon.sdf.org
Yes you are misinterpreting.
I don't particularly support Citizens United as much as I really wish people knew what the opinion actually said, since there is so much misreporting out there that gets it exactly backwards.
It's unfortunate, but these days there is so much reporting that says the opposite of what The Supreme Court actually rules, and CU is a case of that.
It's unfortunate how often I've been told by people that it doesn't matter what the Court actually ruled, though.
@FinchHaven@mastodon.sdf.org @GottaLaff
I appreciate that you're not quibbling, but It sounds like you're also not giving any particular examples, which is what I was interested in hearing about.
A thought into the void: #Mastodon and other #Fediverse clients need a filter option based on number of hashtags to avoid hashtag abuse.
I'm seeing posts with something like twenty irrelevant hashtags today from trolls.
And emphatically public :)
It's a drum I beat that more people need to realize that everything they post here, no matter the privacy setting, is effectively public.
I'm afraid users don't realize just how little privacy there is here on #Fediverse
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:
