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
@Decad3nce, to answer your question simply: nope.
It's sad that there are so many articles that focus only on the rich folks who show up at #BurningMan without covering the huge numbers of participants who don't fit that description, who work and save and struggle just to get there and join their community, to do something beautiful... and who themselves have a dim view of wealthy folks who just jump in without giving back.
The burners that I know are evenly split between career professionals and wage earners, and one of the most amazing thing about the community is how it brings them all together, to help each other out.
But so many articles would have readers believe burning is just about rich people hanging out on the playa.
It's far from an accurate picture of the community and event.
@Jorsh do you realize how nutty you come across with such comparisons?
You suggest the majority of Twitter users want people to die? As they say, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, so where's your citation for that?
It's the difference between action and inaction. It's a tremendous difference.
It's the difference between holding someone guilty of committing a crime and charging them with something they literally didn't do.
It's a world of difference.
@jackiegardina yes, but Nina Totenberg often says things that don't line up with the public record so she's not exactly a reliable source.
@ericwelch that's not how corporations work, and heck, Musk isn't even CEO of the company.
Punishing Twitter impacts all of the corporate stakeholders, so this focus on Musk amounts to an irrational obsession.
@watson@freeatlantis.com
Ha, letting private companies do what they want is not exactly in vogue for the left lately, especially in the US.
Oh, the guy gets around, particularly in conservative circles. He's not short of places willing to have him.
But gas prices had been down, generally below $3, throughout Trump's term, even before the pandemic set in.
Meanwhile, no, the Fed imposed high rates to counter inflation, with a slowing economy being just a side effect of the treatment.
Absent surplus in the money supply pent up demand would not cause inflation, as consumers would still prioritize their spending.
Finally, according to US Treasury receipts, the 2017 tax bill increased revenues to lower the deficit. It was additional spending, not the tax reforms, that increased the deficit since tax collections went up.
Keep in mind that Musk and the company are not one in the same.
A suit against the company is not a suit against Musk. The company not paying a bill is not the same as Musk not paying a bill.
It really doesn't.
A whole lot of people tweeting don't give one wit about Musk or his finances.
Not everyone is so obsessed with that drama.
I mean, if he never pays his bills anyway then it's hard to say he's owned.
What are they going to do, bill him?
What makes you think Alito thought he was ending the abortion debate?
I thought it was very clear that the Supreme Court ruling was opening the door to more debate, not less, as it actively engaged the debate within the states.
Maybe he was referring to the physician, but officials including the press secretary have been publicly saying that Biden will wear a mask as per CDC guidelines, so at least someone over there is treating this as bigger than just a patient and his doctor.
I'm willing to bet that he has advisors telling him it looks bad for him not to wear a mask after they announced publicly that he would and should.
@GabeMoralesVR@mastodon.gamedev.place @luckytran
volkris
boosted
Techbros: self driving cars are inevitable!
Also techbros: prove you are human by performing a task that computers can’t do, like identifying traffic lights.
@GabeMoralesVR@mastodon.gamedev.place
One wrinkle that's worth highlighting is that the federal public health officials work for him.
It's not even a shadowy "they" that he's sticking it to. It's his own agencies, his own executive branch.
Effectively he's sticking it to himself, which makes it that much more absurd.
And yes, conservative media has already been having field days with this, calling him out for this inconsistency and making fun of the press secretary over it.
Right, and that's part of why I think Google's approach is the wrong one: if someone doesn't disclose that their ad is AI generated, it gets tricky to prove that it was, as once a person is under suspicion--if they ever become under suspicion-- then they'll be in the position of proving the negative, which may be thorny to work through.
Even as an election rolls on.
Better to seek ads with verification right up front, digital certificates and chains of custody, showing that they couldn't have been so manipulated or generated.
I've been hearing Canadians complaining about how those policies are harming them in their everyday lives.
Perhaps don't run right to the conspiracy theory, and consider how other individuals feel the brunt of these regulations?
It might be that these politicians are simply responding to the people they're seeking support from?
It strikes me that what you might be looking for is a simple web browser.
Browsers have so much capability these days that apps seem like unnecessary silos.
I just really wish we'd go the other way with this sort of thing.
Instead of requiring ads to disclose AI generation, and hoping they cooperate with the requirement, I'd rather see ads prove that they were NOT AI-generated, or otherwise manipulated, so that we can have faith that the content is real instead of a promise that it's not faked in one particular way.
Musk is a troll. You're talking about him, so his trolling is working. Yay, I guess.
But you're still missing that he paid the amount that the site was worth to him, or else he wouldn't have signed the deal.
He can whine all he wants about it, but that doesn't change the history, that the site was worth to him what he paid for it, or else he wouldn't have agreed to the purchase.
But in the end, he's getting SO MUCH attention out of the whole thing, including your attention, that it sort of seems like he's getting his bang for his buck.
It's hard to see how else he could have used all of that money to get so much reaction, to troll any harder.
Oh, I completely agree that multiple accounts have their place.
I'd describe that as multiple identities: work identity vs social identity. I'm 100% on board with that.
However, what we see around here are individuals with a single identity feeling like they have to set up and juggle multiple accounts for the same social identity because they want to use different features of different interfaces.
It's an unfortunate hassle where a person within a single identity would like to have a single follow/follower list and such but doesn't feel like they can because they want to post both written word on Mastodon and music on whatever that interface is called.
So yep, two different use cases, I'm talking about the second one.
@BradRubenstein @kevinrothrock
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:
