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
About a week ago
@SpinozasHeresy sounds like you are tearing down instead of building up
Well no. The Supreme Court is not talking about fairness. It's talking about the law, what the laws are, what our democratic processes have landed on.
You have the backwards a bit. The major questions doctrine isn't setting aside textualism but rather is a implication of the textualism of the Constitution.
Major questions doctrine is implied by textualism.
The Constitution separates powers, and the major questions doctrine is just about seeing how the powers interplay as per the text of the Constitution.
What examples do you have to support your claims here?
I believe the message is somehow tagged as to whether it's markdown or not.
After all, when the website displays markdown vs text, it somehow knows which way to go.
Apps should have the same opportunity.
And this doesn't require any sort of browser plugin. It's just a webpage.
Yelling "bad faith!" doesn't somehow get you out of the math that these programs are set to spend more than they take in.
If you don't acknowledge that Social Security is on a course to become insolvent under current law then it's hard to even talk about solutions to that problem.
I've really taken to the criticism that describes so much of the content these days as stories written for children by children.
The tone and plotlines of Star Trek and other franchises these days are just vapid, superficial, and immature, worrying about roommate squabbles rather than deep questions about the place of humanity in the scheme of things.
The gaslighting is on the other side, trying to tell us that what we read from the opinion with our own eyes isn't what's in the opinion.
Again, if you want to know what's in the opinion (and I'm not sure you actually do) then we can read the opinion.
All of this theorizing about what might be in the opinion based on indirect observations elsewhere and commentary from outlets around the internet is kind of silly when we can simply read the opinion.
Don't let them gaslight you. Just read the opinion.
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.
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:
