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
#Libertarians and fedi misconceptions...
@Melpomene@erisly.social
Keep in mind that the two party system is a symptom of the fundamental problem with how the US votes, with the winner take all balloting, without ranked choice of any sort.
People naturally organize into parties as they organize themselves to avoid wasted votes, with two parties being the most effective way to do that. It's basically a simulated ranked choice, even if it's not a perfect or very good replacement.
Point is, people calling for a third party are overlooking the problem two parties solve.
The better approach is to shift the two parties in better directions.
Or (and) push for ranked choice voting, but that's a heavier lift.
Not quite.
Copyright doesn't allow you to monetize what you made. You can do that even without copyright law. You can even license permission to use the work even without copyright.
It's just that copyright prevents other people from doing the same, magnifying--not creating--your ability.
I go the other way around with that: it's how much money the people we've elected give him.
And once our officials hand him money, it's his money, no longer government money.
So it goes back to him throwing around his own money, even if it was a boneheaded thing for us to elect people who would give it to him.
Well to put a point on it, NASA failed to create a StarLink type communications network that the US apparently really needs :)
But more seriously, NASA operationally might be fulfilling its mandates just fine, but the problem is that it's subject to political whims since it's part of a political organization.
It's in a really tough spot having to change mission every time Congresses and presidents change their minds, and it has to face the overhead of pleasing all of those different politicians to maintain its funding.
Maybe #NASA is doing the best that can be expected of it, but we keep electing people who drive the ship in ineffective directions.
No, they ruled neither of those things.
In fact in ruling after ruling SCOTUS emphasized the distinction between corporations and real people, even though the press ignored what they were actually writing to say the opposite.
And they did not say money is speech, they said money can support speech, to help get messages out there, which is a very different thing.
These lies have been promoted way too often, and yeah they get clicks for sensational articles, but they are just wrong.
Always fact check.
Sure, except for the other applications of Bitcoin that so many of us have experienced first hand.
It sounds like this is one of those cases where somebody declares that nobody uses Bitcoin to buy and sell things, which is a whole lot of news to all of us who use Bitcoin to buy and sell things.
Whose money does he throw around? And how does he get that money without trading skin for it?
That doesn't really make sense unless he is putting on a mask and robbing banks.
If that's the case then none of this matters anyway since my copyright on my production doesn't buy me anything if you can escape my monopoly by trivially producing what you want instead of buying my thing.
Technical analysis of music, like this one I happened to check out just an hour ago, spend so much time considering our own personal reactions to compositions, things like tension and expectation and payoff and call-and-response invitations to participate..
It makes me think that it's not so much recognizing the music itself or any math therein, but rather the pattern of our own responses.
Even with different tempos and such, we still recall the pattern, the order of our own reactions, and that leads us to [hopefully] recall the song on the tip of our tongue.
A misinterpretation of SCOTUS logic is not a use of that logic.
That sort of comment always comes across as showing that the commenter knows neither the definition of literally nor Nazi.
Not that the person making such comments particularly seems to care...
If NASA had a comparable record we wouldn't be at this point.
You also seem to put loyalty to country on a pedestal that history would advise us to be more skeptical of.
Indeed, though through legal agreements that can be held in check.
It's a bit harder to hold in check those who are actually making the laws in the first place.
Like I said, for all his faults, at least Musk puts his own skin in the game.
I admit I haven't read the ruling, but just from the quote, it seems like the judge misses that #AI is HOW humans created those works.
There's always going to be some human hitting the "generate" button.
I don't think it would.
So long as the seller gets enough of a paycheck on the first sell it might not matter to him whether he has copyright to maintain a monopoly on future sales anyway.
One problem with your conspiracy theory--besides seeming to grasp left and right for different conspirators to blame--is that it overlooks the actual method by which the US appoints these officials.
The appointment requires not just a president, not just a single senator, but both presidents and elected senators from across the country to all agree on the candidate.
It might make for a sensational story to claim a shadowy outside group chooses justices, but it's simply unrealistic given the checks and balances that function to prevent exactly such a thing from happening.
But then, perhaps you should consider who benefits from telling those tall tales, from misleading the public with those conspiracy theories?
Given NASA's record, that sounds like the setup for a reality check for the rest of us and a great lesson on why nationalizing things has so frequently gone so poorly throughout history.
Why would we have faith in a political appointee being capable of running a Starlink in that bloated federal bureaucracy, that to emphasize the point, is subject to the brinksmanship and caprice of Congress?
At least Musk has his own skin in the game.
I'm pretty sure that was always Musk's position, though, that SpaceX was willing to offer a certain level of charity, but not an unlimited amount as it still has to run a business, so if the handout it was extending wasn't worth it, they were welcome to go elsewhere for service.
That's a nice conspiracy theory, but if anything the devil is in that "in part because" phrase.
These people are on the Court because they had widespread support throughout legal, academic, and political fields. They were nominated by a president, considered by the Senate, and placed on the Court because the people we chose to elect (and often reelect) decided they were the right people for the job.
To try to frame it as being about something involving a shady network of fossil fuel interests overlooks the history and matters of basic civics.
It does make for clickbait, 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:
