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
You back yourself into a corner there, though, appealing to normalcy while saying nothing about this case is normal.
Well if nothing about this case is normal, then what does it matter if she's demonstrated behavior that isn't normal?
No, I don't believe it's right to give up that standard. We have existing rules of the road that we should apply even if we might not like the outcomes because the alternative is so much worse.
Giving up on the normal processes because we'd prefer something else in this particular prosecution threatens to win a battle but lose a war.
Well isn't that the normal standard?
If the judge has passed conduct that is unacceptable then she should be impeached. But barring impeachment, so long as she is on the job, the law professor's position you describe seems pretty reasonable.
Yeah that is some throwing the baby out with the bath water pattern of thought.
If Lemmy can be valuable to the Fediverse community then it doesn't matter one bit whether the developers are good people or bad people or smelly or have their in bad intentions.
This isn't like magic. The software will do what it is programmed to do regardless of the mindsets and motivations of the developers.
Well, what is his argument against?
I think that overlooks that #Trump has been actively *rewarded* for so much of the BS he does, which has conditioned him to do more of it. In particular, we reward him with attention.
He gained power based on popularity of his behavior, as frustrating as that is to watch.
The reason I think this is important is because if we highlight the role of society in pushing him to do this crap, we can work on cutting it off.
We need to stop feeding the troll. Accountability can play into his hands.
Sadly so.
Maybe it's not some right-wing conspiracy, and Netflix is simply pointing out that those movies are popular in the world?
Maybe one way to put it is that yes, a responsible developer will stand by his application, but in the open source world developers are free not to be so responsible :)
Really, it's like writing good comments in the code: arguably a developer SHOULD write good comments, but obviously devs, especially volunteer ones, often don't.
You can spill as many words as you want, but none of it changes the greed of demanding others resources while accusing them of being greedy.
volkris
boosted
what plant’s scientific name has the most Main Character energy? I put forward Acer Rubrum as a first bid
Nothing to do with whether it's okay or not. You might think it's okay for people to greedily complain about greed while demanding other people's resources.
Whether that's okay or not is in the eye of the beholder.
Seems pretty upside down to me, though.
Just because a precedent is overturned doesn't mean such a course correction is lawless.
Some precedents are themselves lawless, so it's out of respect for the law that they get overturned.
One quick note, if you aren't familiar with it, the ActivityPub specification goes out of its way to say that entities don't have to be human users.
AP explicitly allows for non-user actors.
I agree that I am completely ignoring that :)
It has nothing to do with people demanding Reddit's resources, demanding other people's stuff, greedily.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Yep, so that's exactly why I caution people not to rush to judgment here and be aware of that there are contested facts at the heart of this case.
I often do think of it in terms of a murder trial: people keep rushing forward with murder accusations before we even check to see if there's actually a dead victim involved.
By analogy, so many of these accusations over the last decade or so have involved murder accusations where the supposed victim is right there joining the chorus, jumping up and down very much alive, and pointing fingers. The world is just that absurd these days :-)
Yes but since a common usage of "adjacent" is exactly "adjoining" that is a distinction without a clear difference.
And that is even if somehow Kagan has managed to go through life ignorant of this definition. I find that hard to believe, but okay.
At the very least that potential equivalence of adjacent and adjoining means that the Court's reading is reasonable. It just applied a common interpretation of the term.
The rest strikes me as jumping through some pretty high hoops to expand executive branch power enormously without clear congressional approval.
Congress is of course free to clarify that it does want the president to have this huge amount of power, but at this point it's plenty reasonable to conclude that this power was not granted.
Yes I am leaving that out because it's not relevant.
If I am demanding your stuff then it doesn't really matter what terms you would prefer to provide your resources, I'm still demanding your stuff, greedily.
A whole lot of people are showing a real lack of introspection, and I think your comment is illustrating that.
Sure that all makes sense.
My point is specifically about this argument, that comes up in far more places than just Reddit, that involves calling someone greedy while demanding their resources.
It's a much sounder argument to simply stick with the company not providing good service or listening to its users.
But consider: those search engines themselves tend to be centralized :)
There are real questions about scalability on the storage and processing side for full text search of a distributed system.
This is not a simple or easy problem to solve.
Governments have an awful lot of private data that isn't classified, though.
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:
