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
Not really.
The changes to Chrome's privacy programming was announced long ago and has been in the works forever, and as I recall was more of a response to EU regulations than anything else.
@lauren
That's not what's happening here.
Partnering with a public social media platform to show ads is not directly participating directly in disseminating hate speech.
Here's the docket for anyone interested.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-117.html
I mean, it's unflinching but also unrealistic, full of misrepresentations of what rulings said that just don't match what we can read with our own eyes in the opinions that were handed down.
This article is a work of historical fiction, but it gets clicks, so *shrug* right?
It still needs to be called out for being so misinformative, though, even if Slate profits off of selling the story.
What's the basis of the criminal organization comparison?
It sounds more than a bit hyperbolic.
@watson@freeatlantis.com
There are legit reasons and strategies that would lead lawyers to do this, though.
For example, wanting to get the trial over with more quickly so that it can be appealed more quickly.
You don't have to jump to the conspiracy theories here.
Yeah, let's not involve objectivity or factual accuracy in this *eyeroll*
I wouldn't let them get away with "just different"
At this moment I'm dealing with a situation where we're going to have to spend thousands of dollars addressing a choice to use a more resource intensive platform when a lighter weight one would have sufficed.
There's more than just subjective preference in these cases. The choices are objectively and substantially more costly.
Implications are easy. You can put whatever words you'd like into someone's mouth with them, without having to justify the setting up of the strawman. Super easy!
I just can't figure out why you hate dogs so much, though. Your last comment implying your want to go through the shelters euthanizing all puppies is pretty troubling.
Oh, is that not what you meant? Well I say it was. Implications are easy!
But that's not factually how the US government works.
Congresspeople don't vote on whether or not to shut down government. It's exactly the opposite. They vote on the terms to keep it open.
Further, it's not really correct to cite wackos here since Democrats voted as a unit to block consideration of the funding bill.
So not wackos as much as mainstream Democratic position.
Yeah, as you can see they were saying things that weren't true.
It's a real shame that we let politicians get away with lying like that, but I guess we get the government that we vote for.
And yet the official record debunks the claim.
It's really unfortunate that the American people are so mislead about what's going on in their government. They can't hold officials accountable if they're so mislead about what the officials are doing.
Except, you yourself posted what he said above, and what you're saying here isn't what your own quote of his language said.
So, no, that's not what he said, and as a citation I reference a great post, above, by one @mcnulla that debunked your version of his statement.
You can put words in his mouth all day if you want. But that still doesn't mean he said them, no matter how much force you might use to shove them in there.
As far as I can tell, in many areas of software development stuff like this has become perfectly acceptable, with no real priority being placed on efficiency, either in terms of dependencies or runtime resource usage.
I was once told that computer science courses don't emphasize things like big-O analysis anymore.
I guess processors are now fast enough, memory cheap enough, and networking so ubiquitous that those considerations fall behind glitzy new development management practices.
If folks don't place value on minimizing dependencies, well shucks, that takes time away from figuring out snap packaging or whatever.
One step forward: mainstream conservatives today intensely criticizing last night's Republican debate as a mess of people yelling over each other instead of expressing positions and exploring matters of substance.
Two steps backwards: the exact same individuals celebrating that it's the rolling around in the mud moments that let you really figure out who the candidate really is.
Well, it's not just conservatives of the moment: throughout the political environment, across the political spectrum we see people bashing bad outcomes before supporting exactly the elements that brought us to the place and promote it into the future.
We get the government we ask for. We need to stop asking for such socially unhealthy things.
We can't put all the blame on politicians for doing what we empowered them to do, and reelected them for doing.
The dysfunction will continue so long as we keep reelecting politicians promising dysfunction.
Ah, but I am!
Which is why I took time to hear yours!
I just wish you realized how weak your rationalizations come across, as you try to support that original position instead of considering that maybe, just maybe, someone was a bit wrong about the world today.
The weakness of your explanation as you tried to compare the senator's position to the original expression--whether it even happened or not--should really make one reevaluate.
You read an implication that literally wasn't in there, and so you ended up blaming him for things he didn't say.
Don't you realize how indirect that is, when it's your own interpretation and not his words that you're resting so much of your argument on? Really, it's just a step above talking about what Nostradamus was implying about the Twin Towers.
And yes, in an interview he agreed that it wasn't funny after the fact, so he supports you there.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
If it's in their best interests to do so, sure.
People operating in government have extra incentives to do exactly that, to file exactly those sorts of amendments, as voluntary demonstrations of transparency.
Same as presidential candidates not needing to release their finances, but most of them deciding to do it anyway.
Note that the senator's statement is entirely consistent with rejecting the tweet you posted.
Just because "the military is not an equal opportunity employer" doesn't mean one wants to cut off the nose of the program to spite the face of a targeted group.
The two positions aren't the same.
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:
