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 think people complaining today about #CNN giving #Trump airtime should consider that it seems his performance served to show the country that he hasn't changed, and he's not being misreported on, we see directly from him that he really is just as awful and not worthy of election as he was last time he lost.
Had the event not been broadcast there would have remained a more doubt among people on the fence, that maybe his handlers finally got through to him that he has to act different if he wants to be president.
So it's a case of, Don't deplatform, instead let people show you for themselves how awful they are, so they can be judged with even more finality.
Also, I suspect it was a no win situation for Trump. Had he pretended to be moderate then his supporters would have gotten upset.
Well I can let you know that for me personally, QT functionality really did entice me as I was looking around at different Fediverse options.
So yes, we exist!
I really find the QT option to just be natural and fill a semantic gap that isn't really filled well by other options you mention, especially considering how kludgy they feel.
QT is great for building on content to expanding audiences, and they're just really isn't a better natural way to do that, to really enhance the value of the content on the platform.
Sure, it's also going to be abused, but I'm more interested in building up than keeping down.
For me at least, it's not that I'm surprised people might not want to have #QT People have all sorts of different opinions with regard to both cosmetic and operational sides of UI.
The part that's a bit surprising to me is that Mastodon would be so solidly choosing that side that would intentionally disempower its own users, keeping the feature away from users who feel it improves their experiences here.
The flight from Twitter represented a chance to do better, to find a new path on a new platform, so it's especially surprising to see so many complain about top down issues at Twitter while also insisting on the top down choice not to provide QT functionality to users who want it.
Better would have been to implement the feature along with functionality letting people filter out QTs if for whatever reason they don't want to have anything to do with them.
volkris
boosted
Neato!: https://subtls.pages.dev/
This page produces an annotated transcript of fetching itself via HTTPS over TLS.
One thing to keep in mind is that the technology behind #Fediverse , #ActivityPub , scales in resource use with primarily by number of instances, not so much number of users.
To put it a different way, it's a much larger load on the system to add 50 instances, two users each, than to add one instance with those same hundred users.
Be careful pushing for far expanded numbers of instances, as the resource use to do that might not be sustainable.
I think the article is misleading.
Thomas's own writings describe how the situation changed over time, how appeals to deference have grown bolder than expected, so given that new evidence, he's been clear that he thinks the new environment is off-course.
In a way it's not that he changed his mind on an issue, but that the legal system changed, leaving him feeling the need to address the new ways that the federal government is functioning.
There's nothing scandalous about that.
If the funding sources were agreed upon in 2022 then we wouldn't be at this place, as the spending would be covered.
But sure, show me where in the budget bill it lists the source of funding to cover the deficit spending.
No, you're incorrect.
The debt ceiling is just the term for the constitutional assignment of borrowing authority to Congress. The name might be recent, but the idea goes back to the very beginning.
"The Congress shall have Power [..] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" <--- there's your debt ceiling right there
So Congress authorized deficit spending, but failed to authorize the borrowing needed to actually make it possible.
Since Congress failed to provide a funding source to cover that gap, they left us in this mess, having authorized something impossible.
Again, authorize infrastructure or don't, but if they do, then they need to provide funding for their program.
They didn't, and they need to be called out for that.
Yeah, there are some sadly intolerant corners of this place, that folks want to describe as so friendly and happy.
@voxel@ohai.social
Maybe you address them in the paper, but it sounds like you might run into issues of action vs inaction and minimal imposition needed to support a government interest.
As I recall a lot of the religious liberty protection comes down to, Does government *really* need to impose ___ to reach its goal, or is there a less intrusive option?
Unfortunately when it comes to abortion, if we accept that restricting it promotes a legit goal (or else this is all moot), then there isn't much room for more or less intrusion.
(I'm not looking to start a debate, but if you feel like a summary response to this, I'd be happy to read it!)
In this case it's not that the dems should have *blocked* reps, but that they shouldn't have actively created this situation and handed it to the GOP.
Democrats chose to pass appropriations bills without funding sources, putting us in this situation. That was their decision, their active effort.
Basically, they created a mess that we're now all dealing with. They shouldn't have created that mess.
George Santos, International man of mystery
"H.Res.114 - In the matter of George Santos."
I suppose people don't tend to receive these historic sounding shout-outs in Congress for *good* reasons :)
So I'd say the signature should be context dependent.
For example, if a reporter is quoting an expert or public figure verbatim, I'd like to see their signature attached to see that they agree that they were properly quoted.
Or if the piece is a technical explainer, the reporter might get a few subject matter experts to attach signatures, publicly attesting that they reviewed the material and it's solid.
Just a run-of-the-mill report or newsbrief though? Sure, the reporter's own signature might be fine; track down others might be overkill. Well, we might want editors' signatures too, just for fun.
But the main thing that comes to my mind with this is the quotation signature. It doesn't happen every day, but far too often over the years I've seen reporters literally leave out a word like "not" and end up reversing the meaning of the quote.
The signing process would have had the speaker catch the misquotation, hopefully.
I'm happy to criticize Trump and, I was certainly opposed to those spending bills. But there's a major difference between then and now:
Funding was provided for those programs. The issue of this moment is that funding for these programs doesn't exist.
I believe the worst thing is Congress having promised to spend money that doesn't exist. That breaks the government all around.
Sort out infrastructure spending however, but do it reasonably, providing a funding source for the programs.
Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, when I first looked at the design of ActivityPub I worried that it sounded resource intensive to scale, and then when the Twitter exodus happened I heard a ton of people on here complaining about that exact concern.
So it's something I keep an eye on, though I haven't run it myself to have first-hand experience.
The concern I've heard expressed is that if a reporter is asking, say, a politician to sign a report, to certify it as authentic, then the reporter will feel pressure to play nice with the politician to "earn" that signature.
I understand the concern, but I think the pros outweigh the navigation of that task.
It can even stand as a form of review that's both annoying and fruitful at the end of the day, if it leads to the hassles of revisions that end in a better report.
@gimulnautti
@mnutty
In my experience, when I hear someone expressing criticism or even frustration with journalists it's due to the reporter's product standing or failing on its own, not due to bashing from any third party groups.
I know a lot of people who've become especially disenchanted with the way #journalism is conducted these days after hearing reporters confidently saying things that go against the listener's own professional expertise.
That's not to say there aren't people out there who *are* swayed by political bashing, just that I tend to converse with professionals who have this other, pretty eye-opening experience.
Once that skepticism sets in, they start to notice other flaws, and now we really don't know any particular source for great journalism.
@madelainetaylor@mastodon.scot
The labor force participation rate remains well below its 2020 level.
You're still excluding people from the count which spends the statistics.
I think that illustrates my point.
100 bills loosening regulations on firearms does highlight that there are so many regulations on them to loosen.
If guns were so unregulated, then they wouldn't have anything to pass bills against. That they are passing legislation against the regulations goes to show that the regulations are considered constitutionally allowable.
Otherwise instead of passing legislation they would just challenge the regulations against guns as unconstitutional and leave it at that.
So right. There are a lot of regulations against firearms in the US. The 2nd Amendment is not seen as all that powerful, and we can see evidence of that in what you brought up, the Texas legislature's decision that they need to augment the 2nd Amendment with further legislation.
I think you are overestimating the places where people can carry guns.
Governments have had quite a lot of ability to rope off places as sensitive areas where guns are not allowed, and certainly private property owners are able to set rules against carrying on their premises.
Gun free zones are definitely a thing, meanwhile even disruptive protests are often tolerated even against clear rules about it.
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:
