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 don't think they care.
Account portability was such an obvious feature that surely they considered but rejected it as not particularly important to what they intended to build.
ActivityPub is all about instances, not users. It's all centered, and centralized, around instances.
Account portability just doesn't matter to that instance-first organization.
Through #ActivityPub, #Mastodon privacy settings rely on voluntary cooperation. You *request* that instances only share your content with the audience you specify, but there is no real way to enforce that.
This comes as a surprise to many users.
Me, I think I'd change the UI to call it "suggested broadcast"' rather than anything related to privacy so that users are more aware of where their content might end up.
I think you underestimate just how incompetent US government officials are.
It reminds me of the sequester deal Obama made, that he didn't expect to ever take effect... until it did.
We keep electing morons, so even if Congress cares about the rich and the companies, they're generally too bad at their jobs to do them well even in corrupt ways.
@jonradioV4@mastodon.world
The Constitution assigns to Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States" since any borrowing that could impact generations of Americans probably shouldn't be done without democratic approval.
The debt ceiling is merely the term we use for the amount Congress has authorized, so it's built into the constitutional design of the federal government. It's been there since the beginning.
The president cannot legally borrow money without authorization. Any borrowing he might attempt would be without legal backing.
Republicans already voted to raise the debt ceiling, so if Biden did pass what they've handed over, they wouldn't be able to default.
@SuperTapani@newsie.social
They already voted to raise it...
There's a lot of misinformation going around about the bills.
The debt ceiling disagreement is NOT about paying bills. The Treasury has plenty of revenue coming in every day to pay the bills, as you can see in its report below.
The disagreement is about buying *new things* borrowing more to enable new spending, creating new bills.
Plus, paying bills is an executive branch function, up to the president, not Congress.
Politicians are lying to us, counting on us not knowing how the federal government works so they can engage in political grandstanding.
That's just not consistent with the record over the past couple of years.
The deficit exploded during the pandemic as there were massive increases in spending, even as the Treasury reported increased tax collections after the Republican tax reforms.
It's not necessary to understand the nitty-gritty. It's a matter of raising user awareness, preferably through UIs that do an effective job of informing users of what's going on.
Just for example, on my client here there's a button called "Adjust toot privacy" and *at the least* I'd rephrase that to toot audience, toot reach, or toot broadcast.
Maybe even "adjust suggested broadcast" to avoid giving the impression that privacy is particularly guaranteed.
Well, you quoted the text above and it doesn't call for action by the Senate.
"shall nominate" and "shall appoint" are the only calls for action, and the president is the subject for each of them.
No, my interpretation is based on the text first and foremost, with the location emphasizing its role in the structure of the government and separation of powers providing yet another confirmation that my interpretation is the correct one.
Not only does the text NOT call for action from the Senate, but it would be inconsistent with the rest of the design of the federal government if it did.
What advantages do you expect the single user setup to have?
*I* have lent dollars to the US government. And the Treasury reports that it has accepted loans from a tremendous number of people and organizations around the world.
It's really tinfoil hat territory to deny that based on what we see with our own eyes.
Funny. That's not what the screenshot says, where it invites AP to back up its claims first.
@stanstallman Don't forget the most critical part when it comes to #Trump: loser.
But yes, if you listen to Republicans and the things they're focused on, it does make a ton of sense.
Just to give one quick example, one small piece of the picture, the guy runs on this idea that "they" are out to get Republicans. His whole thing is that he will fight for them against that supposed threat. So, you mention twice impeached? That is a bonus for him! It both "proves" his rhetoric that they're out to get Republicans AND shows him fighting.
It really does make perfect sense, and if we understood each other better we'd hopefully be able to squash those notions and take those talkingpoints away from him.
Weird way to draw attention to the point by not addressing the point! Again, this is why I'm criticizing it as a distraction.
If the paper wanted to draw attention to how often people were being failed by insurance, then it should have talked about how often people were failed by insurance.
But it didn't. It went off on this irrelevant statistic.
That makes me think this is a newspaper article trying to get clicks by using a sensationalized stat that will get people excited.
Sadly, that doesn't help draw attention to how insurance companies are or aren't failing.
House Republicans voted against this bill 200 to 9, and that the legislation didn't even provide borrowing authority to fund it is probably a pretty good sign that they were right.
Democrats voted us in to this position as a block with only one vote against.
It's silly to say Republicans agreed to this when they put pen to paper fighting against it.
I mean, they already passed legislation to approve the additional borrowing power.
It's some hostage taking when Democrats set up this situation by voluntarily passing their spending bills in the last Congress without providing funding, and then not taking yes for an answer when Republicans voted it forward.
The GOP was handed hostages, they released them, and Democrats are insisting on keeping it going for some reason.
It's clearly constitutional, though, as the Constitution explicitly assigns to Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
Biden has no authority to borrow money without congressional authorization, and anyone buying that debt should be aware that without legal authorization it's not valid, and they would have no claim to get it back.
The Whitehouse needs to compromise, exactly as the US system was designed, to make sure the president doesn't have such unilateral authority.
@debasisg@mstdn.social
That's not how federal spending works.
The Treasury spends money throughout the year, so the issue right now is money that has not yet been spent, has not yet been charged to the credit card.
Yes, there has been a ton of misinformation about this, but you can read the Treasury's daily summary of spending here, showing that it's not a matter of not paying back unless the president orders Treasury not to pay out of the money that it is taking in:
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:
