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
Your examples prove my point, though!
That the Court declined to intervene is not an exercise of power; it's literally a Court NOT acting, with lower courts having their say.
AND the procedures outlined in the document you linked show how the inaction reflected the mood of the entire Court, not any particular member.
The shadow document is a powerful tool, yes, but you're misunderstanding what the tool does: it doesn't undermine the process but rather allows the Court to focus on more compelling and important cases.
The shadow docket is a powerful took for allowing the Court to operate more efficiently and effectively. It's an internal tool, not this external one as it's being portrayed.
Of course there's a boss in Mastodon! The complaints about questionable decisions by the lead developer are pretty widespread.
Yes, there's a boss and there's perception that he's failing.
There are SO MANY complaints that Mastodon doesn't work all that well, from its resource consumption through issues of privacy and user disempowerment.
So absolutely, Mastodon is a pretty great example of how not only is there a different boss, but the different boss is just another failure point.
volkris
boosted
apparently i passed a phishing awareness test last week by correctly ignoring a fake linkedin email
nobody tell my boss that i ignored it entirely on the assumption that it was a real linkedin email
If you read the link that you provided, it goes into detail about the protections built into the system to provide checks on justices acting alone inappropriately.
For example, "If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may renew the application to any other Justice of his or her choice"
Meanwhile lower court decisions remain significant even as the process works out.
Why in the world do you think changing the new boss won't be like the old boss, that someone getting paid to work for a company would be particularly different from someone being paid to work for a government office?
Politics is certainly no panacea to replace capitalism.
Our governmental institutions fail all the time, so I don't know why you'd see that as such an improvement.
Heck, governmental institution fail to require corporations to act the way you're prefer!
But SCOTUS isn't all powerful in the US system, and certainly a single justice isn't either.
For the Court to act requires more consensus, meanwhile lower courts will have their say.
We really need to avoid these sensationalized stories that focus on personalities instead of process.
@Suig@mstdn.party
What specifically have you been seeing?
This is why i really wish there was more diversity on this platform, particularly more US conservatives, so I could see what they're thinking.
... if not occasionally ask them, What in the world are you thinking?! :)
In my experience BBC News is interesting for presenting US events from the outside perspective, showing how US events are perceived overseas, but it's not actually reliable as it views things through a rather skewed lens.
For example BBC will often discuss US politics as if we have the same parliamentary system, and so will get things a bit wrong.
BBC also does this weird thing where they will read out listener comments as if they are fact when they're actually simply wrong.
So yeah, I've been listening to BBC consistently for years, and it's interesting, but not reliable at all.
@m0urs@social.urspringer.de
Yeah, hopefully that will flag this as a bug that can be addressed upstream.
Assuming the allegation is true, the real scandal here is that Vivek couldn't or didn't operate Wikipedia well enough to just do it himself.
Sadly, that's about where the bar is set for presidential candidates in the US these days.
volkris
boosted
Not sure if it's a great data point, but after running my #Mastodon instance since November last year and never clearing its media cache (except for once or twice in the first few weeks as I learned how things worked), my cache is a little under 40GiB.
3GiB is post attachments. The rest is profile headers and avatars.
@m0urs@social.urspringer.de
They're just open TCP sockets, or are they sending actual requests?
Yes, that suggests someone else paid for it, but it doesn't answer the question, Why do people care who it was?
I honestly just don't see how it's relevant to anything.
More promising of things he can't possibly deliver.
To establish Roe would require a constitutional amendment, which the public is definitely not up for.
So just setting up for another broken promise in a long track record of them.
Why do people care?
@I_Like_Books@strangeobject.space
I'm curious what examples would be given to illustrate the observation.
For better or worse Robert Reich reports his opinions spun his way.
Why in the world would you to go him to see his responses? As a commentator he's absolutely not going to give a fair account.
Best go to the primary source to avoid confirmation bias.
Or, and I always encourage this choice, ignore the whole thing.
Better to ignore politics than buy into a slanted view of it.
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:
