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 only jumped in to the last post of this thread, but FWIW, it sounds like making new objects that make sense for your application is the way to go, and maybe starting from the interface to work back will help figure out what objects/types are needed from an applied direction.
Never forget the feedback effect of negative things filling a vacuum when positive things are removed.
Whether that's in politics or business or information platforms.
So many good people left #Twitter and demanded that other good people also leave the platform, so there should be no surprise that the platform shows more bad actors now.
But it's a case of complaining how the game is going after deciding not to play anymore.
Musk’s X spreads more disinformation than rival social networks, EU says Twitter/X left voluntary alliance but is "not off the hook," EU official s...
McCarthy didn't kill the bill, though. He declined to support it on the grounds that it didn't have a path to passage in the House.
It wasn't just up to him, though, he was speaking for all of the elected representatives.
This order? The Court denied the request for a stay, which is not the same as telling Alabama to redraw a district.
It just declined to get involved at this stage.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092623zr_i425.pdf
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
Firstly, you assume he needed to file an amendment in the first place. Public figures voluntarily go above and beyond with disclosures they don't need to make pretty commonly.
Secondly, the guidelines have changed over the years. Reportedly he amended his disclosures, without needing to, to follow updated guidelines even though he was in compliance with the rules as they were at the time of filing.
Never said it wasn't possible.
But over and over we see offhand claims like these debunked in the end, so why would I believe this one either?
Again, not that it matters, as the key point is that I don't believe it represents the core political problem, whether the anecdote is true or false.
Notice that he didn't mention inflation.
Also notice that we don't have to make assumptions about his intentions as he later clarified that the post was intended to be a joke.
Yep! AP gives some room for flexibility for transport mechanism, but it generally specifies how different instances communicate with each other with inboxes and outboxes.
@ematts@mastodon.online
If the violations are obvious then there will be no trouble impeaching the violator.
The thing here is that there is a ton of misinformation, speculation, and sensationalism getting certain press outfits some yummy yummy clicks.
But the violations aren't obvious to more sober eyes, which is exactly why we have the impeachment procedure in the US system to stand as a way of responsibly and rationally handling these situations.
I'm sorry if the rest of the country hasn't bought into the perspective that you've bought into, but that's exactly why we need calmer hands on the wheel, and a democratic process here.
US Politics
They key is that we're voting for specific representatives to specifically represent us and our communities.
This is one of the big differences between the US system and some parliamentary systems.
We're not voting for some party to represent us with whatever politicians THEY choose to put forward, no, we're voting for Bill or Jane to represent me, and I can hold them directly accountable for their actions.
...If I wish and am informed about how they act.
So it's that last sentence that's a huge issue in the US. We have a great system but so few of us actually use it.
I don't think that's cause for throwing it out, though.
I think the key is for different interfaces to offer users choices to pick what algorithm they want. I'm all about empowering users to get the experience they want.
It doesn't even have to be standardized. Mastodon could offer one set of options while another platform offers a different set.
@ematts@mastodon.online
I mean, it's nice that you believe that, but then we also don't want to give someone like you authority to impose your personal beliefs because you yourself might be corrupt.
(or misinformed, which I suspect is the case)
Maybe it should be up to me, though?
No. We leave it to the democratic process because of all of the non-ideal options, that's probably the best option there is, without any one authoritarian hand being able to intrude into the judicial branch, with all of the conflicts of interest that that involves.
If we as a country--represented through our democratic process--don't think there's a problem with a justice, well that's that.
If you care about this issue then think hard about it when you decide whether to reelect your representative who's choosing not to impeach.
Kick him out for failure if you want.
@WritingFactory
Well mainly that it's the core political problem in the USA, but I'm also skeptical that this ever happened in the first place, not that that matters.
Mainly that this is the core political problem, because I don't think it is.
Folks don't like to admit it, but even "show the most recent post first" is an algorithm.
Yes, #fediverse has algorithms.
The question is whether we want choices of better ones or not.
@ematts@mastodon.online
Well it's because we want a firewall to protect judicial independence.
It's one thing to pass a law and dictate what a letter carrier might do, but to have the legislative and executive branches dictating things of the Supreme Court? That's far more fraught.
If a justice is misbehaving them they can be impeached. That's the one and only reaction provided to deal with justices without violating judicial independence.
May be something explicit?
Right. The Republicans I hear from long ago settled on the "well that's just how real estate works" position.
So the decision doesn't change anything. If anything it merely reinforces their ideas about Trump.
@freemo so I think that's the key, focusing on the different sets of facts, working on coming to some consensus with them over what is true.
You started by saying you were astonished by the theories, but given the alternative sets of facts, it shouldn't be so astonishing.
Its simply people working from a different playbook, and often having very predictable ideas based on the facts they're working with.
@freemo well for anyone else who's interested in this line of thought, I'd emphasize no *legal* check.
There are bureaucratic checks, folks in the chain of command who can put up speedbumps or be hassles to any command, whether it be "bring be coffee" or "launch a nuke".
It's not about legality at that point but about management of the sprawling executive branch of the US government.
At some point it might be easier to fulfill some legal requirement than to get cooperation out of some 18 year old service member five levels down a management bureaucracy..
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:
