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
Well, it's such a huge topic, one of those where there's no perfect solution, just different imperfect options, all with their drawbacks.
I do have two responses though:
It's been missed in the reporting that SCOTUS actually DOES have ethical rules. For example, Thomas is reported to have consulted the authorities on those rules at the time, who told him how to abide by them. And when the rules changed, he pivoted to abide by the new rules as well.
So the rules do exist, despite so many reports getting that wrong.
Second, when you talk about shaking things up, keep in mind that reliability and predictability are inherently valuable to the legal system.
*Even if* a rule might be a bit off-key, it's valuable for a person to know what the rule will be. Shaking things up comes at a cost.
Really, it's a count your blessings situation. A new Court has every chance of being worse.
Firstly, I don't think you have your facts right here, but setting that aside.
Assume for a moment that you're completely correct, that they were legislating, and that such legislation would be respected.
Even so, legislation opposing the authority of government and restraining the hands of executives who demand power is hardly the image most of us have of the Third Reich.
The "legislation" we've seen insisting that executives are bound by the democratic processes and can't unilaterally use prosecution to impose on citizens seems to go pretty strongly in the other direction.
This reminds me that I was never really able to enjoy #Twitter, and I think my objection was rooted in the philosophy that would intentionally and unnecessarily hamper posters by a character count.
Every other thing that irked me, from the UI through the algorithm, seems related to that original sin: a platform willing to block the beauty of the written word probably would be up for all of the rest of the ugliness of the experience.
And, of course, writers handcuffing themselves to such policies would be going into it with limitations on their craft.
I'm so glad at least some #Fediverse interfaces allow for writing that is as long as it needs to be to express the writer's beauty.
Choice paralysis is a much larger and more broadly recognized part of human psychology than something being caused by Twitter or learned helplessness.
But practically, choice paralysis is a real barrier to adoption of #Fediverse for so many users, so it's probably healthy to recognize and address the human factor concern, not dismiss it this way.
Here's the moment, for any fellow parlipro geeks, on the last page of this edition of the Congressional Record.
The unanimous consent requirement to vote on a nominee was bypassed with a vote of 52 to 48, overcoming the objections of 43 senators.
Of course they can't suspend the normal procedures using the normal procedures. But they always have this option available, and they indulge Tuberville by not calling him on the mat.
"Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair."
https://www.congress.gov/113/crec/2013/11/21/CREC-2013-11-21-pt1-PgS8413-5.pdf
@MJmusicinears @samhainnight
The rules require unanimous consent to suspend the normal rules, but they can, and do, suspend the unanimous consent rule by majority vote.
Just for one notable example of overcoming the unanimous consent rule, take the ending of the nomination filibuster.
They certainly didn't have unanimous consent, as there was a filibuster in the first place, so they just bypassed the unanimous consent rule itself.
@MJmusicinears @samhainnight
No masquerade. It is innovation, we can see that with our own eyes.
Theft sounds like the misrepresentation, though.
We broadcast content into the world; it's really a tough sell to say it's theft when somebody takes what we give them and builds with it, especially considering the lack of the scarcity factor underlying the common concept of theft.
So it doesn't sound like theft masquerading as innovation as much as innovation being misrepresented as theft in the course of grinding some axes.
Thanks!
I want to read more of the links in the article, but from just reading the article itself, it does sound like people having disagreements about what the law actually is and whether they can be cited or not.
So that's an issue if it's down to talking about closing a loophole that's not actually legally open in the first place, if the local official is just playing wrong about what the law says then It may be more effective to fix his misunderstanding (or fire him) than to work to make changes to the law that is right the first time.
After all, in the course of those changes such a loophole might actually be introduced!
There are different levels to the game it sounds like they are playing.
InstagramThreads
@openwebfriend@procial.tchncs.de
If you mean it will cost money to maintain computer infrastructure, I think they have scaling of data centers sorted out. At the scale they work at, I don't think it's going to be much of an issue.
If you mean in terms of customer support, I figure they will have some pretty big labels saying they aren't responsible for what's coming in from Fediverse.
Come to think of it, nailing down those labels might be what is taking them a little extra time before they federate, figuring out the best way to disclaim responsibility for what we are all saying over here.
As commonly promoted as this conspiracy theory is, Occam's Razor would at least have us consider that maybe, just maybe, the fundamental advantages of cars over public transit has something to do with cars being popular compared to public transit.
I mean they have pretty big differences in the problems they solve well, but that gets overlooked by people who are more interested in pointing fingers at boogymen and making implicit attacks on groups you have singled out here.
It doesn't stand up as a convincing argument to anybody who's not already buying it.
I think you misread that situation quite seriously.
Scared shitless? No, merely pointing out that it doesn't make financial sense for them to make large investments in the language models in such a legal environment, so they won't, and we'll all lose out on the benefits that their development might have contributed.
Oh no, not at all. It's nothing new that proverbial secret sauce is considered trade secret to be protected by those who developed it.
It has nothing to do with illegality. It's simply a group who made a large investment trying to protect that from copying.
Well one part is simple advertising, but another is that by federating they get to bring so much content from the Fediverse to their users for free.
So they get to bring the free content in to extend engagement with their platform. Makes sense to me.
... They voted to limit government power
They pointed out that the government did not have legal authority to be so authoritarian.
You've got a weird take on Nazis.
Yeah, reminds me of the issues with Mastodon hammering websites for image previews as posts circulated among instances.
I wouldn't be surprised if something of yours got boosted to a large followers list, causing every one of those instances to respond with a request to your instance, without you even knowing.
Maybe even a QT that's not being reported in a standard way back to you.
I'm sure it all varies widely by context and use case.
Very often it really doesn't matter one bit where some content came from; its value is in what it is, not from its source.
So it's really probably between individual producers and consumers of the media, to be sorted out by reading the wishes and applications.
@ray_saltrelli@mastodon.social
Yes, but I think you're overlooking that Meta can *already* do a ton of scraping due to the design of ActivityPub whether or not they launch Threads.
It's not going to be all that worse because we've been there since the first moment someone started using this protocol with such small regard to privacy controls.
Well, what kind of requests?
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:
