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
@J12t@social.coop Well there are two different use cases here.
People wanting to have different hats is one thing. It absolutely makes sense to have a professional versus a fun persona. Obviously that person doesn't want to link the two.
But the issue of having different accounts on different platforms because they do different things, that is a huge drawback to the #Fediverse system as it is now. That's the case of the same hat, the same persona, on different platforms simply because different platforms can't do the same work.
I really hope the system that some point figures out how to have the same account/persona on different interfaces. I think I remember that Bluesky might support that out of the box.
Well I would encourage you to at least look around at Fediverse options beyond Mastodon since other interfaces with more long form or multimedia friendly capabilities would be more in keeping with the NPR mission.
@morecowbell@mastodon.social
Well right, but we have still not made any progress on the initial task of figuring out what in the world you are talking about.
Maybe you're missing that a lot of us see that as a feature and not A problem or even all of the problems?
That's not what happened, though.
Voters voted in members who broke rules. It doesn't subvert the will of the people to evict those members: they were admitted and seated until they actively and knowingly chose to break the rules of the democratic body.
If the voters choose to elect representatives who give up their seats, well, that's the will of the people.
*I* wouldn't vote for such a person, but it's up to them.
I mean, that's fine. Mastodon is free to hobble its users and keep this tool for communication away from them, even as the rest of us move forward and embrace more empowering interfaces that have it.
Tells you they're interested in effective, concise communication.
Firstly, no, that's not the SEC's job.
They don't police the entire financial sector: other agencies ranging from the FTC through the IRS through even the Secret Service police financial matters.
Secondly, if you really want to go that direction, the SEC's focus on securities sort of means they're working for mostly rich people to protect rich peoples' investments.
I wouldn't go there myself, though.
People with prejudices against Thomas are reaching way too hard to make something of the guy visiting his friends.
You're really ready to die on this hill, huh? Alright then.
@morecowbell@mastodon.social
Is it? I'm still waiting to hear what you meant by "Josh Blackman the white trash Carl Schmitt."
Yeah, screw that democracy thing. It's annoying when other people don't agree with the "right" conclusion.
Let's just skip to having judges impose their wills on the law.
From what I've read, Bluesky seems more advanced, more user focused, basically more like what I wish ActivityPub had been.
But critical mass is king.
Facebook didn't rise because it was the best at what it did. It won its corner because it had critical mass of users already on it.
But that's just the greed of wanting security and being willing to trade other things to get it :)
Greed here is just the term for wanting to be better off, and that's just plain natural, reasonable, rational.
It's just a way of describing that rational want using a word with some judgmental baggage attached, which isn't particularly helpful.
So, many people trade currency for electricity for Bitcoin because they value the security of the cryptocurrency. That's perfectly rational.
My point: don't blame the crypto for the electricity. Blame the currency for failing to provide security such that a person would trade it for BTC.
@morecowbell@mastodon.social
No?
I think they didn't because they explicitly said they didn't.
It's unfortunate to me how proud people seem to be sometimes not to have considered other viewpoints.
@box464 yeah, I've been seeing such things and it's been really troubling/annoying, people around here posting a wall of hashtags so many of which are unrelated to the actual content.
Such a thing undermines the use of hashtags at all, once they no longer identify their content.
Unfortunately, it seems there is incentive to hashtag pollute like that, and little to push back against it.
Perhaps removing hashtags from the body would make that even worse, hiding the pollution.
@atomicpoet @thedextriarchy @fediversenews
An ax I grind:
We need to be clear that this isn't about Bitcoin but rather what people are willing to pay in order to acquire Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin system itself can run on a car battery.
People decide to compete with each other to get more of it, buying extra electricity to trade for a chance to acquire it.
The real takeaway is that Bitcoin is highly valued, enough that people are willing to bid up the price like this. We shouldn't be so much yelling about the price but rather thinking about what's happening with the world so that #Bitcoin is so valuable in the first place.
People trading money for electricity for Bitcoin really says we should be rethinking the apparently less valuable money.
Fortunately you don't need to have faith in the decisions of such a man since the US government was designed to make sure no man (no one) could hold far-ranging powers.
Checks and balances are in place specifically so that flawed humans would have their powers checked.
This ranges from having a Supreme Court that meets as a group through the extremely limited powers that the Court has in the first place.
I really don't care what this guy thinks. I do care that he's part of a system that specifically holds him back from imposing his own personal thoughts, and the decisions that come out of the Court show that.
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:
