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
I honestly think the issue here may be that documentation hasn't been finished, that AT is a communication protocol, just one that's not fully documented yet.
It's plenty legit to criticize devs for getting behind on documentation, but that is a different criticism.
Well, no. The "new precedent" is that clearly wrong precedents should not be maintained merely because they're precedent.
It's really a progressive stance, one that allows the errors of the past to be recognized and corrected, not clung to and, well, conserved.
Yes, I do have such criticisms of Fediverse :)
I do think an awful lot of people are on here using a system that they don't understand, that they won't take care to understand, and as a result they are putting their privacy at risk.
But *shrug* nobody asked me whether it should be promoted.
He's requesting power to borrow more money, to have his Treasury issue additional securities on the credit of the United States.
Right now the Treasury is limited to borrowing a certain amount. Well, the president wants the power to borrow more, but he can't without authorization from Congress.
That's simply how the federal government is set up, the checks and balances, that generally limit presidential power to that which the Legislative Branch authorizes.
@Thompson@newsie.social
Nothing more. I wouldn't bother arguing. Just making sure you knew that's how it comes across.
But what when the topic would simply require more time than they have available to understand?
It's great to say it's our job to make them understand, but that assumes that they HAVE the resources to understand in the first place.
The person with only five minutes will not understand the ten minute lecture even if you say it's your job to cut it down from thirty minutes and make sure they get it.
No time is no time, and it shouldn't be seen as anyone's job to do the impossible.
@Thompson@newsie.social
You do realize this comes across as nutty conspiracy theory area, right?
The long, long list of references saying otherwise is pretty stark.
But regardless, trying to reverse outcomes based on changing interpretations like that comes across as gaslighting.
"That phrase does not mean the thing you think it clearly means. Trust me."
This is why we have a constitutional amendment process, though. Work to create a political consensus to change (or "clarify") constitutional rights, and have at it.
Reality is that every human has limited resources in terms of (at least) time and energy, and limited time and energy to devote to understanding different details of different parts of the world.
You talk about faults, but there is also the simple reality of human existence: I have a half hour free now, should I learn about technical details, or should I plan dinner?
It is perfectly reasonable for a lot of people to decline to learn these things because they have higher priorities. That's not the fault of technologists keeping them in the dark.
That's simply reality rearing its ugly head.
I don't think it's either a feature or a bug but simply something the goals of the project don't care about.
ActivityPub is completely focused on instances. It's all about the content that instances are putting out.
To talk about migrating from one to another is sort of speaking gibberish to the fundamental philosophy of ActivityPub since users are such second-class entities in the system.
I think it was a choice made by server-focused people making server-focused design choices.
US Pol
What do you mean the president can act unilaterally?
The debt ceiling isn't being held hostage.
The president is requesting more power, and Congress isn't eager to give it to him.
That's no more holding it hostage than is the burger shop holding a burger hostage until I agree to pay for it.
If the president wants expanded power to borrow, well, under the US system it's up to him to work with Congress to gain that power.
Reigning in Chevron brings judicial proceedings more in line with the laws passed by the democratic processes, that's all.
So that statement is pretty off base, as it means businesses would also find it harder to challenge regulations that weaken environmental protections built into law.
It means it would be harder to duck statutory authority regardless of whether the regulations are pro- or anti-environment, which is part of the point.
You seem to keep getting caught up on things separate from legal issues in this legal process.
Again, if the law is bad, then let's talk about reforming the law.
But this case is about what the law says, and that has, honestly, nothing to do with the drug being unsafe or ineffective.
The judge is not there to issue an opinion on the effectiveness of a drug. That's not his area of expertise, so he's not in a position to judge it.
This is 100% about following the law EVEN IF THE LAW IS BAD and needs to be reformed.
But that doesn't count the bytes needed to transmit the content around behind the scenes?
I figured the instance-to-instance traffic was part of the enormous overhead being cited above.
I think it's really important to reply to comments like this to raise awareness that #Fediverse is absolutely not outside the reach of #bigdata collection.
In fact, given how the core protocol is set up with few privacy controls, it arguably makes #Mastodon content even more likely to be vacuumed up by big data.
People need to realize that they have only limited control over their content here. Anything they put in is effectively broadcast to the world, no matter privacy settings, and if you're worried about big data, well, big data operators are happy to vacuum that up.
I'd just rush to stress that science and policy are emphatically different things.
#Science can tell you where a policy might go, but it's a political matter as to whether to adopt policies to go there.
Whether you support a policy or not can be informed by science, but at the end of the day, the subjective and objective are different things.
Meh. At this point I have so little faith in Disney's management of Star Wars, or in Star Wars writers, that even though I loved the first season of #Andor I wouldn't trust that they weren't already screwing up the second season, so this might actually *prevent* some bad writing from making it to the screen.
I think you're assuming all of the recruited moderators can objectively/mechanically moderate, all with the same moderation philosophies, and the same values reflective of the relevant population.
In reality, that's not how it plays out.
In the real world, moderators will disagree, so you might need to set up appeals processes, formal guidelines, processes for approving and improving the guidelines, and on and on.
It's not merely a ratio of moderators to participants. There is overhead above 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:
