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
So it's an advantage that becomes vanishingly small as the one doing the cutting follows their incentive to make the difference also vanishingly small.
And that's enough to make the solution practically, if not ideally, very useful.
Right, because I'm viewing this based on the factual record, that's public record in courts' dockets, regardless of my personal preferences or outcomes.
When there's a problem to fix it's critical to correctly identify the problem, and when courts like SCOTUS are involved, the facts of the process are especially crucial.
So you're glossing over critical facts in what you're saying, getting the facts wrong, and that's no minor detail.
Let's say, for example, that you think a judge here was so in error that they need to be removed from office. Yes, that would be one way of addressing the problem BUT the it's critical to know which judge to target.
It is no minor detail that you're getting the facts of the case wrong even as you're focusing on eventual outcomes.
Well my first reply is that, for better or worse, keep in mind that Trump started his bid for presidency kind of a long time ago now. Time flies.
But really I would say that the only reason he ever managed to become president was due to all the garbage that was coming out of both parties for decades.
I'm not talking about the last few years. It's been generations of really trash messaging that set the stage for all of this.
It's not the last few years. We've had a generation of really garbage journalism really screwing over the country with crappy reporting.
But that's no different from any other internet activity.
I mean here on Mastodon / Fediverse there are no real deletions either.
Yeah, you can send out a deletion request, but it's all voluntary, exactly the same as IPFS.
Welcome to the internet.
Or I guess, welcome to reality. From the first publication of a newspaper there has never been real deletion. Anything you put out there can stay around as long as anybody who wants to keep it.
Woooow What in the world are you two talking about?
Republicans are better at messaging? The party that can't seem to break through left-leaning media outlets, can't seem to provide any balance as folks like Donald Trump vomit ridiculous statements left and right that cannot possibly make any sense to any rational listener?
No, Republicans are awful at messaging. It's just utter nonsense coming from them.
The problem is that even if Democrats can message a fantastic theory of the world, a lot of us listeners notice for ourselves that their theories just don't comport with the realities that we experience for ourselves.
You can't blame Republicans for that. They are garbage, but at the least they aren't telling us these stories that we can see with our own eyes aren't true.
@freemo which means that the person cutting has every interest to make sure both pieces are the same size!
@janl nah, because if the joke is bad nobody is going to request it and so it will sit on a single node and not be distributed.
I mean, that's just monetization with more steps...
Siiiiiiigh.
It'll be like a nonstop Trump campaign that he doesn't even have to tap into his bank accounts to pay for.
Just be aware that THIS platform also allows that, even in less detectable or policeable ways.
An ax I grind: IPFS isn't about files but about data, whether you end up wanting to download that data as a file or not.
At its core IPFS doesn't store files. It's just that, you can request data in a file format from the system, but that really gives up so much power that the system otherwise offers trough IPLD and such.
Not in IPFS!
In IPFS every joke effectively gets its own number, with no two jokes ending up with the same one, so no clogging.
There's an old idea of fairness that when cutting a cake between two people one person cuts and the other picks the piece they want.
This method aligns the interests of both parties, no matter how corruptible and *human* they may be.
I think it's underappreciated how often the US government design has a similar method in its checks and balances: one group can reject an official, but they don't get to choose the replacement.
See, for example, impeachment proceedings.
After all: "This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public."
--Hamilton (maybe)
But that's not factually correct.
When the Supreme Court denies a petition like this it doesn't *allow* anything. It merely declines to take a position either way on what a lower court has done.
The Court factually maintains neutrality, neither allowing nor disallowing.
The denial did not mean the law was allowed to go into effect; that is a misstatement of the factual record here.
The Supreme Court didn't overrule a lower court, and it takes a logical leap to frame that inaction as action, the declining to act as action.
That's where what you're saying is departing from the facts and going off into left field.
You're leaving out the lower court rulings which are pivotal to this timeline though.
This is a disagreement on fact, though.
I pull up the actual docket directly from the Supreme Court showing that what you're saying is wrong, factually wrong, so I don't really know why you would agree to disagree.
We have the authority in front of us showing that what you're saying is wrong on the facts.
I guess you can continue to disagree with that if you want but I don't know why you would.
The Supreme Court says that your position is incorrect. I don't know why you maintain it given such repudiation.
Again, you keep making these statements that just aren't factually correct. Your theory is just don't match reality.
You say the only thing the boss controls is the trademark, but that's wrong. You can very easily see that the boss controls source code repositories if nothing else.
So yeah, once again, you have these fantastic theories that just don't line up with reality.
You're factually wrong though.
OF COURSE there was a question that it was constitutional at the time it was passed since the whole point was asking that question!
And no, the Supreme Court didn't decide to allow the law to go into effect. It made no such decision.
Again, these are flat out matters of fact, matters of the record that we can see right there in the docket. There is no room for disagreeing about what happened any more than there is room for disagreeing about whether the sun rose this morning.
There's no equivocation on this. You are simply wrong as to what happened as per the official documentation, and it's worth pointing that out I think.
@admin it really sounds like you have no idea how Mastodon works. It is a single project that you can check out at the Mastodon development website where the boss dictates how development proceeds, contrary to your factually incorrect theories.
@Suig@mstdn.party
Well to clarify what I'm talking about, imagine holding the two thoughts simultaneously:
These vaccines are terrible!
The great leader made these wonderful vaccines!
At some point those two thoughts HAD to collide, and I was just waiting for it to happen.
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:
