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
*Ha, to be clear I don't mean the following personally and I'm also not claiming it's what's going on in this particular case. With that out of the way:*
One thing I often see is a person who seems to have a limited set of arguments, pretty much including both claims and responses, as if it is already gamed out and ready to be pantomimed to the predetermined conclusion.
The frustrating thing in those cases is that the person ends up trying to shoehorn every other discussion until one of the scripted arguments in their pocket.
It's kind of like a strawman argument, except there's a little more to it since the point is to apply the script, not to actually debate.
In the present case, there are some legit things to study from the differences between cities and surrounding areas, that this diagram reinforces pretty clearly.
Ideas about voters aside from that distinction represent pretty well trod pathways, which I'd say is even more reason not to revert to the same tired argument instead of more interesting observations about urban versus rural divides.
There's just not much to be gained from substituting the standard argument, especially without recognizing that the substitution is being made in the first place.
So it could very well be that if we were more clear about what's happening, that it's not the single senator holding up the process, then more senators might not feel so safe in backing the delay.
If we asked politicians to go on the record with whether they support the delay or not then there might be an overwhelming majority ready to stand up and move forward.
So long as we talk as if it's just one senator, though, it gives cover for all the rest to not stand accountable for their role in this.
Again, it sounds like you are trying to have an argument that isn't the one on the table here.
Great, if you want to talk about voters and democracy and the way votes are or are not counted in federal election processes, good for you. But that's not what the poster is talking about, so you are complaining about a point being made against the context that you're trying to substitute.
It's something of a strawman argument you're making.
The trick here is that so often in US law it authorizes a particular official to make a determination, handing them authority to ignore the rest of the law.
It's really about Congress handing authority to the executive branch without much oversight, and Congress should probably stop writing such laws.
This might be perfectly legal simply because Congress gave the president the right to ignore the export restrictions.
The guy really seems like a jerk, so I would hope this would not be a surprise to many people.
@TruthSandwich @freemo @freepeoplesfreepress
It's not misleading. It's simply showing something different from what it sounds like you would prefer it show.
You say it shows dirt, not people, but guess what defines a state, a boundary line drawn in dirt, not people.
If you would like to talk about populations instead of geography, great! But that is a completely different issue.
Well right.
All of the coworkers would say, "Well yeah... you drug me to a meeting for this?" because they already know what they're doing there.
The employee would be rightfully criticized for wasting people's time, getting them in a conference room just to tell them what they already know.
It's not an ego game. It's just the trade any employee makes a return for the pay they want.
It's important to point out that no one senator can block the business of the Senate if most of the Senate wants to proceed. They can just vote to move forward regardless of what he thinks.
And so in this case it's the entire Senate that is sanctioning the protest, including the Democratic majority.
It's important to point this out because it shows how the Senate as a whole is happy to indulge this sort of thing and score political points despite the implications.
Yeah so maybe it's something like a sports car versus an all-wheel drive SUV.
The zippy Wayland might be faster, but it's not as capable, but plenty of users were never doing the analog of taking it off-road anyway :-)
To be clear, the Senate can move forward any time it wants to. A single senator can't hold up the works if most senators want to proceed.
The whole Senate is effectively backing the protest.
I believe that is the case.
At least some officials have said that the agency being whistleblown looked at him and decided he wasn't a whistleblower, which is all sorts of Kafkaesque.
@TwistedEagle
My impression is that X11 was very flexible and could do so many things and address so many corner cases, while Wayland wanted to tighten things down, give up functionality for the sake of efficiency, and really that's not the direction I personally would prefer.
It's really awesome being able to throw X11 windows across different servers. The networking side of it is really cool.
I get the argument that most people don't do that stuff these days.... but I would still miss having those features.
From what I read in the article it doesn't sound like violation of any copyright is their issue but rather their not wanting to reveal trade secrets, the training that produced their AI systems.
They don't care that we know they used copyrighted material. Obviously they did. There's no issue with that. But they want to protect the AI model they invested in against anyone else who might follow their exact footsteps to make their own competitor.
Keep in mind that depending on jurisdiction copyright does not mean necessarily that it's illegal to use the content. It's more about effectively claiming ownership of somebody else's content, but you're still free to use it.
So it's not that they did crimes.
Aaaah, so even more like senators where there are different classes of senators, there would be different classes of justices serving their time.
Sounds like a reasonable way to handle it.
But this is exactly why we need to be clear about what's happening, so we can be clear that a lot of the politicians that we keep reelecting for some reason are letting us down.
These are questions for lawmakers, not the courts. And yes, the lawmakers are really not doing their jobs the way they should. But we keep reelecting them, keep handing them the power to keep going, so I guess we're okay with it.
We absolutely should not let them point fingers at the court, though, for their own failures to fix the laws. That's how they try to duck accountability.
And if we buy these false narratives about the court rulings we won't hold these lawmakers accountable, and so we won't get progress on these important issues.
Realize that there is absolutely nothing contradictory about algorithms in #Fediverse platforms. Effectively that just comes down to a UI tweak, and any client or interface is perfectly free to implement whatever algorithm it wants.
Heck, keep in mind that newest first is itself an algorithm, although a quite simple one.
Further, one of the huge criticisms I have of #ActivityPub is exactly that it is so instance-focused instead of user-focused so that it does not really help people escape. #Threads would really be a good fit for that philosophy.
So #Meta would use federation to bring a bunch of content from us to its users, while offering to its users the chance to be heard by all of us, at least in theory. That's good for the company. That's good marketing for them.
I think you overestimate the downsides of Meta turning on federation.
To be clear, it's not a Republican block, it's the entire Senate deciding not to move forward on the nomination.
The Senate is free to vote to move forward at any point. If it's not moving forward, that's because most of the senators have not decided to move.
And that means it's a Democrat thing if anything, but really it's the whole Senate.
Careful: I never like to believe Trump's brags since it sort of plays into his hand, and gives him the attention and feeling of importance that he really wants to have.
I'm not so quick to believe this small man had that sort of impact just because he says he did.
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:
