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
Well, an issue is that #Bluesky seems more focused on users than on instances, so when you talk about Bluesky adding federation, it's not clear that's even a thing in Bluesky.
Since Bluesky apparently ties users to instances a whole lot less, it makes for a conceptual paradox to talk about federating with Bluesky instances that sort of don't exist in the same way.
There may be sort of translators between the two systems, but if they operate on entirely different core mechanics, it wouldn't be transparent.
Keep in mind that there are limitations of the system that are core to design choices made when it was being designed.
For example, ActivityPub has no way to ensure that text isn't being available for search (or even display!) regardless of opt-out.
And that's no minor thing that can be tweaked later. It is core to how the system was set up.
Maybe for the best, maybe for the worst, but it's important to keep that sort of thing in mind.
A lot of choices are pretty set in stone at this point.
Reporting says the money WAS reported to the proper SCOTUS ethics reviewers.
That's part of the issue here.
Yet another case of people living with different sets of facts, one quite sensational.
When I point out that these sensationalized stories made it so that it doesn't really matter what the justices do, so they might as well not bother trying, your response really illustrates my point.
It treats them like reality TV stars with skewed editing and dramatic storylines instead of actually looking at their job performances.
It's no wonder they might throw up their hands and just ignore the media.
Sounds to me like Kamala's husband shouldn't have resigned, if he left behind such valuable work!
I think you're overlooking the issue. Since they don't really have an effective means of PR, there's no way they CAN control the appearance of impropriety because no matter what they ACTUALLY do, clickbaity organizations and self-interested politicians will still command the story.
So since it is futile for them to try to manage appearances, they might as well just ignore it and just do their jobs.
They're looked at through the lens of a media and political environment that both have conflicts of interests, to tell certain sensational stories, regardless of reality.
@jackofalltrades Yep!
People with a higher relative ratio of cash on hand vs things to spend it on might be tempted into dipping toes into the water of stuff like #Bitcoin
Pandemic closures and fiscal responses set the stage for that, all through personal accounts, not corporate ones.
A problem is that the two systems may have been so completely different that #BlueSky couldn't have really contributed to #ActivityPub. They were just to the core engineered with incompatible designs.
#Fediverse is centered around and bound to instances in ways that BlueSky seems to be rejecting, with BlueSky being more focused on being distributed while Fediverse is more federated.
It's like asking why the sports car maker didn't just contribute to developing a faster city bus.
They're just such different projects that there's not much to be done.
Absolutely!
#Mastodon is analogously the email client like GMail or Outlook or Thunderbird.
It wasn't his kid. It was his great-nephew, which is far enough removed that it's not considered a direct contribution to the justice.
Once again, these stories are skewed and sensationalized.
It's mainly the part that says a justice gets to stay on the court without penalty, no matter what, until he retires or Congress decides to remove them.
All manner of personal activity is constitutionally tolerated unless Congress chooses to impeach.
@jonradioV4@mastodon.world
That's a reach.
Operational control of all avenues to do something impossible doesn't mean much.
I have operational control of all avenues to sprout wings and fly around the room. The number? Zero.
I have operational control of all zero ways to do that.
You're reading an awful lot into some silly political rhetoric put out by a person who stood to personally gain by sounding more influential than he really was.
A more likely explanation is that with the state's own AG pushing for a delay so they could consider serious issues with the case, the SCOTUS saw an exceptional situation and figured they had better give room for it to play out.
I really suspect the Court considers it futile to stage some PR blitz to address what's in the press lately, so they're generally ignoring it.
Although, my concern now is that ActivityPub will collapse not under the weight of corporate splintering of the standard but under simple inability of the system to scale to push much more through.
ActivityPub seems to have design features that are cruddy under big-O analysis.
The Court already has rules, though.
There is discussion about whether justices abided by rules as they consulted experts for advice on the rules, and there's talk about how the rules have changed, and all of that is premised on the observation that the rules do exist.
If you believe those people to be the norm, then they aren't the extreme, by definition.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
These stories seem to forget how Supreme Court opinions work, acting as if they're mere politicians voting up and down on laws.
The Supreme Court presented reasoning to support its decision. It didn't simply vote like a politician, and it stands to be held to account based on the reasoning that it laid on the table for us all to see.
It's such a huge distraction to go looking for personal drama, ad hominem attacks, and personal transactions when we can see exactly what logic the court presents to us, that we can judge.
Well, without naming any names because I don't want to sound like I think anyone has solved this problem (though maybe someone has!), but there have been many efforts over the years to work on distributed storage efforts that could help out here.
I'm just thinking, people interested enough in an instance that they'd maintain an account on it and be active on it might also be interested in contributing their spare processing or storage space, even if they can't afford to chip in payments.
Distributed social media distributing its resource usage out to users is a reasonable concept!
To be fair, the two statements are talking about different things, the whole Senate vs the Judiciary Committee.
The Senate has a backlog of nominees awaiting consideration by the whole Senate, so they're working through that backlog even if the Judiciary Committee is moving a little slow adding more to the end of the line.
Not that this statement really *needs* to be taken seriously, but at least it's a moment to talk about Senate procedure... among people nerdy enough to be interested in that stuff :)
That has also been my experience.
@SwiftOnSecurity @mattblaze
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:
