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
Long ago I worked for a little startup business where the boss had the same attitude of, "Some of our customers will walk away disappointed. That's fine."
I wouldn't be so quick to write that off as fine.
It didn't work out well for that business either.
@jupiter_rowland @thatguy
You seem to be missing the crucial point that users who don't like the Mastodon approach don't want to use it, and won't be around to be embraced by non-Mastodon apps.
More cooperation with a flawed idea is flawed.
Keep in mind that the dispute before the Court has absolutely nothing to do with blockchain, and it will be fairly rare for the Supreme Court to actually need to understand Bitcoin given its role in the US judicial system.
The Supreme Court mainly deals with procedure, with understandings of things like blochchain settled in places like lower courts and other branches of government.
So to be specific, the question the Court will be asked is, "Does a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration oust a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal"?
Those goals might be at odds with a distributed system, though.
With the shortcomings inherent to federation, it's hard to say for sure that such conversations are particularly possible.
So we have people trying to shoehorn functionality that's not right for the tools, and it's not working so well. Perhaps they simply shouldn't.
One reason it should bother people that #Mastodon is a singular gateway is because so many may dislike the Mastodon experience and never go farther, never see other things that #Fediverse can provide.
It's like counting on some barely edible chain restaurant food to introduce people to an otherwise wonderful cuisine.
(You can insert your own example there :) )
People turned off by Mastodon's operation and interface may never sign up for other instances that would serve them better.
The headline is erring as it misses that so many in the GOP literally didn't see violence.
You might say that they were mislead or ignorant or frame it however else, but it's a function of the "we live in two different worlds" environment we're facing today, where people operate on different, incompatible sets of facts.
So when the poll asks how people thought of Jan 6th it's critical to realize that people have complete opposite perceptions of what happened that day.
They're not supporting violence. They're supporting their perceptions of the event, which for so many doesn't involve violence in the first place.
That point is critical to interpreting the poll.
Keep in mind that the Court's ruling was in light not so much of Dobbs but of both parties in the case requesting that this resolution be reached.
Yes, even the side promoting abortion rights requested this outcome.
KBJ's dissent doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but only with her opinion that the Court shouldn't have acquiesced to the motion without applying a different standard.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032023zor_8nk0.pdf
What's the source of this quote? What dispute exactly prompted it?
I also wonder how this interacts with the encryption certificates involved in the protocol.
@ashdragon@mastodon.social
Yes, unless instance A takes the additional step to censor/filter instance B content.
The reason this common claim is wrong is because the US Treasury will bring in enough revenues throughout the year to service US debt.
The full faith and credit is absolutely not a legal bargaining chip here since the executive branch has plenty of money to cover the debt even under the current debt limit.
It's even more fundamental than that, going back to the 1780s.
The Constitution assigns to Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
But since the authority rests on Congress, Congress is under no obligation to borrow more if it doesn't think the additional borrowing is a good idea.
To say otherwise is to overrule congressional authority, in contrast to the democratic principles at the core of the federal government design.
What the what?
Well that's nonsense
No the executive has to follow LEGAL law.
The legislature is not free to write just whatever law it wants. The legislature is not free to violate the separation of powers inherent in the structure of the US government. It is not legal for the legislature to pass unconstitutional laws.
This is fundamental to the design of the US government, and for a very very good reasons.
And so the executive is legally, constitutionally, required to pay the debts of the United States regardless of what the legislative branch may say.
Except that's not how the federal government works.
The full faith and credit are executive branch functions, not legislative branch. The legislative branch has no control over the executive branch paying its debt obligations.
I know a lot of places are reporting as if it is, but they are misreporting issues of basic civics, basic functions of the federal government.
The executive branch has to pay its obligations. It doesn't matter what Congress does, the executive branch must pay the debts as they come due. They have enough money to do so, so they constitutionally must do so.
If the president decides not to pay his obligations, that would be an impeachable offense.
The problem is this is an executive branch function, not a legislative branch function. This misses the separation of powers of the US federal government.
Yup. I want to make a norm that people don't overuse hashtags in a selfish attempt to increase their reach.
Hashtag spamming?
@sgirlprivacy@universeodon.com
You say that, but it's not your money.
The people whose money it is, the people with actual skin in the game, they disagree, and so they are willing to give up their money to pay the guy, because he's worth it to them.
And that's no skin off your back.
It's just like anything else. I wouldn't pay for super bowl tickets, but if you would great. It's your money, go ahead and buy the tickets and have fun.
Or I wouldn't buy a deck of Magic cards. Maybe you would because that game is worth it to you, in which case great! Again, it's your money so you spend it in the way that you think is worthwhile, the way that you think is beneficial to you.
So it is with these CEOs. The companies that hire them spend their money because they think the CEO is worth it. No skin off my back. Only off theirs, and since they are spending their own money on it, whatever.
It doesn't matter what you or I think of the pay, just like it doesn't matter what you or I think about paying for super bowl tickets or magic decks. It's their money for them to spend in the way that they think is worthwhile, at their own loss if they are wrong.
He's not banning books, and a lot of your other claims are pretty questionable as well.
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:
