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
My impression is that so many Fediverse/Mastodon fans really want this platform to function the same way Twitter does, with its free-wheeling, firehose, comment-forward design, rather than the way other platforms work, with more of a post-centric approach.
Come to think of it, I'd also point to opposition to longer content (like this) that they say "ruins" the experience. They want the *feature* of having writing constrained with character limits.
So many seem to want Twitter... just not on Twitter... so they want the very features that kept me, personally, away from Twitter.
In the end some of those design choices do represent forks in the road that can't really be taken both ways.
If you're talking about the ruling out of Texas, I'm searching for the word "unsafe" and not finding anywhere that the judge said the drug was unsafe.
Where did he say it was unsafe, if this is the ruling you're referring to?
My solution is that we stop reelecting the people that put us into this position. Kind of a first do no harm solution.
Once we have rational congresspeople in Congress then we can talk about having them discuss serious budgeting priorities.
But we keep reelecting these completely unserious, completely irrational people to Congress, so as far as I'm concerned the rest of the story is kind of irrelevant.
It is ridiculous that the last Congress authorized spending of money that didn't exist without doing anything to provide for the money, but we re-elected so many of the people involved in that, so 🤷♂️
My impression is that so many Fediverse fans WANT it to work exactly like this, so any change that might be an progress would be a major break from the intended behavior.
In other words, my impression is that SO many people consider this behavior to be a feature, not a bug, that would be broken by a change.
I think it's a bad decision for so many reasons, but so many people love it that way.
volkris
boosted
@drazraeltod Replies to a post should be metadata on that post. The post itself should have primacy. For someone to see a reply to my post, they should need to retrieve it from my instance. That would also allow me to moderate replies, delete them, and prevent posts from people I have blocked from being seen by others who follow me.
I am well aware that this is not how the ActivityPub design works, and I am here to tell you that in this way the design is bad, and the designers should feel bad.
How much would that save and what is the deficit today that needs to be resolved?
I don't know if even that would be enough of a spending cut to resolve the debt ceiling issue.
So what specific interpretation do you believe this judge got wrong?
No, you're missing the separation of powers between branches, the checks and balances.
Congress does NOT do the spending. Congress gives permission to spend, but spending is done by the Treasury in the Executive Branch.
Spending is an Executive Branch activity, which is why the Treasury is in that branch and why the president is the one in charge of the reporting of what has been spent, as he spends.
Well, I'm yelling that we need to reform the laws :)
But so often I see judges doing a good job interpreting bad laws, with lawmakers happy to point fingers at the judges because it relieves them of the responsibility for the laws that they themselves might have passed.
We should not let them get away with that, though.
The current circus around the FDA is a great example. We should be yelling at Biden to follow the approval laws and settle this whole thing, but he gets positive press for pointing fingers at courts.
I expect it will come down to enforcement, it's not that the ban itself is unconstitutional but rather the way they choose to enforce it (or not) might be.
The ban itself is rather nonsensical. The legislation should be seen as pretty dead, just rhetoric without practical application.
But if the state starts sending people fines for supposed violation, then those would hopefully be laughed out of court.
As a person who often has trouble finding the things I want to buy because I'm looking for specific things, I'm EAGER for them to give out more info about me, so they can sell me things I want!
I don't need dog food. I do need a certain plant for my garden.
Please tell the advertisers. I don't care how the money changes hands. Thanks!
(is what I say to #Google )
@Ruthie@mstdn.social
What in the world? Where did Mitch say he was going after Medicare or Social Security to pay for tax cuts?
That's not really how those programs interact.
To be just a bit more specific, because I happen to have it in my copy/paste buffer:
> "In this Court, the sole question presented is whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast."
To be fair, that's a tradeoff many on that side are happy to accept.
I often hear conservatives talking about how "big business" takes advantage of "weak" immigration policies to lower wages in pursuit of profit, and they want to change that even if it means fewer workers.
(Their perspective, not mine.)
Sure, if you only interact with yourself on your own instance.
But the moment you federate, you're trusting the instance owners of those you federate with.
@nyquildotorg
Well, right, they're different things.
The law is what it is regardless of science, regardless of whether the lawmakers even knew what science is, and judges rule based on law as it is, even if our democratic process lead to really awful, unscientific laws.
That's why we need to push for better laws, not yell at judges for giving us the outcomes that we, through our representatives, set up.
It sounds like a pretty narrow ruling in an unusual case without much implication for fair use:
> 'In this Court, the sole question presented is whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast.'
it sounds like you're overlooking that deference to administrations is a double-edged sword.
Really, this isn't about what courts do as it's about what presidents do. Should a president be able to reinterpret laws at will? What of the next time a president reinterprets a climate law to say he doesn't have to regulate pollution?
These justices are trying to rein that in, saying that presidents really do have to follow the laws as Congress passes them, without such reinterpretation.
Yep. UI/UX is always the stumbling block for this kind of thing.
It's a crime that we don't have a norm of encrypted email messages, but the UI was never developed to make that happen.
Solutions we've had in academia for decades are just never mainstreamed because the UI never implements them.
It's a longstanding tragedy in tech.
ActivityPub was designed with the instance focus, so that ship has sailed. A user focus is just not in the cards for this system, having already been passed on.
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:
