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
I think particularly in this case we don't need to consider whether correlation implies causation when we have actual practical math with real numbers to consider.
We can consider the marginal cost of the better one time purchase and then the smaller recurring or daily costs, and even include things like interest compounding if we want to.
For anyone interested, here's the link directly to the video and timestamp of Brooks explaining his tweet and saying he thought it was a mistake for him to have tweeted it.
Sounds like he meant it as a joke but people took it on face value, so Poe's Law applies.
In part it depends on what you mean by "fediverse."
To a lot of people fediverse specifically refers to the system that uses the ActivityPub protocol to tie instances together. Since AP doesn't support those things, there can't be a fediverse answer to them.
Other people push for a broader definition of "fediverse" but that gets tricky.
@freemo I'd say this is a case where different people may use the terms slightly differently, and this example falls within the bounds of normal diversity of usages.
Since growing and burning wood keep the carbon cycle on the surface some would consider it to be green.
That's in contrast to something like burning and mining coal, which releases new carbon on the surface that had been previously removed from the cycle.
A problem is that the underlying technology and protocols scale mainly proportional to number of instances and not users.
In other words, more instances mean a lot more resources are needed to communicate messages between them, but twice as many users doesn't require that much more.
This is baked in to the engineering decisions that were already made, and it would be pretty hard to change those decisions now.
So, whether or not the future is large instances philosophically, the system was programmed to promote them technologically.
Sounds like the #Hollywood writer's strike is raising the issue of requiring an arbitrary minimal number of writers to be involved in a production, which just makes me think about the phrase "designed by committee."
It's not supposed to be a positive phrase, so making the committee arbitrarily larger doesn't inspire confidence in the eventual work.
Alabama is saying the *district court* made an error in failing to notice that AL is upholding the *Supreme Court's* ruling.
The Supreme Court "in Allen never said the measure of a congressional redistricting plan’s compliance with §2 is as simple as counting the number of majority-minority districts" as the district court insists. [1]
All of this reporting that AL is violating the Supreme Court ruling is misleading at best and outright false at worse.
It's not necessarily true that users will be exposed until they block. Alternatively, they could only see feeds that they allow.
So some demand one thing, others demand the opposite, and empowering users to make those decisions as to their own experiences is a great way to go.
A problem is that they're working with limited resources, limited staff, and to put resources toward a certain activity, like updating a Fediverse account, means taking them away from some other valuable use.
If they only have resources to update one or two platforms it makes sense to update Twitter.
Well, keep in mind that sometimes a blind person might simply want to know what's in the image, and if the description is too long they might not want to wade through it to find out.
The problem with that line of argument is that it tries to counter one false or misleading stance with just a different false or misleading stance, which leaves the response vulnerable to debunking.
YES e2ee absolutely lets people doing bad things hide in the dark, and there's no sense denying that. Those technologies protect the privacy and hide communication of all without regard to their guilt. Any denial of that will come across as obviously wrong.
Instead the argument should be that protections of privacy for all, for YOU, are worth supporting as we find the balance between personal rights and law enforcement priorities.
Yes, if we had a camera in every bedroom we'd catch more people doing bad things, and not mandating such cameras does hamper law enforcement, but we're willing to accept that trade off. We don't deny that police cameras in bedrooms would catch more; we point out that we're willing to make that trade.
Same here.
@freemo it's one of those cases where people are reading way too much into a statement #Musk makes on the fly.
The statement I've seen quoted was his merely musing about ways to combat bots. And then the world blew up interpreting that as his saying they would definitely be charging everyone for #Twitter access.
We've been around this cycle so many times, but people never learn.
It's like the opposite of the boy who cried wolf: the boy didn't cry it and the villagers didn't stop responding.
Here's a link to the Senate talking about going through the appropriations process, and they're talking about it even as the House hasn't passed any bills.
Whoever told you that appropriations are initiated in the House told you wrong.
Maybe you're confusing it with the requirement that bills for raising revenue must begin in the House, though even that is basically nullified these days through the amendment loophole in the Senate.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-and-collins-kick-off-consideration-of-first-appropriations-bills-on-the-senate-floor
@MaryAustinBooks
@watson@freeatlantis.com
Sure, break the fever, though that may involve killing the patient in the process.
The thing is, no matter if this is right or not, if most of the people we elect to Congress don't agree then it won't work.
If we elected people who want to continue the fever--or however you want to phrase the status quo--then that's what we voted for.
The diehards opposing that are risking a much better outcome whether they're philosophically in the right or not.
And again, based on the representatives we've elected. It may be our choice to continue the fever. From what I've heard from them, the diehards don't seem to recognize that.
I suspect CNN runs the program because people are interested, "should" or not, so really the question is better answered to those people who are interested.
Yeah, Trump says a lot of things. And barfs out other things that people interpret as him saying things.
It's all pretty pointless to take seriously, which is a problem.
Can't hold the guy accountable for breaking a promise that you can't actually tell he made, after all.
It's a nice conspiracy theory, but have you considered that maybe, just maybe. Chevron should be overruled not because of any back room dealing but because there's been a mountain of evidence that it was a mistake in the first place failing on its own right?
All of this side drama is kind of pointless when we can see the arguments for and against here in public and judge them ourselves.
The drama is distraction from the reasonable arguments that really matter in Court decisions.
House members have no authority or ability to shut government down.
They/re not paid to or not to shut government down any more than I pay Netflix to do the same thing.
It just goes against basic civics, fundamental elements of how the US government functions, how Congress functions in the system of separate but equal branches.
The problem is, I think you got so caught up in telling a compelling and dramatic story of personalities that you lost sight of what the ruling *actually said.*
Yes, you may have written that, but when talking about what the Court said, it would be much better to have actually quoted from the Court, not this dramatization of your own composition that seems so far from the work of the court itself.
Self-citation isn't exactly bringing in an ally, after all :)
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:
