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
Again, the difficult question is one of how to run governance if we exclude anyone who knows about the thing being governed.
@crooksandliars so?
This is only the party vote, not the House vote, so I don't know why any of us should care what the party is doing and its internal deliberations.
@simon_brooke There's an eternal problem with governance in that often enough the people with expertise in any industry are already involved in the industry, so you end up having to face the choice of whether or not to bring in someone with expertise, even if it allows articles like this to throw dirt.
That the guy is a member of the board of directors means that he might know what he's talking about.
There's not necessarily a conflict of interest here, but there is like I said the normal issue of how to govern if we are to avoid having anyone involved who knows what they're talking about.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
Well that will vary from owner to owner as each person has their own valuation.
Just like anything else in the world.
@izaya You're talking about studies being needed, so against that backdrop, how can you say we have 90% of the technology developed and flown?
That we would need studies means that we can't tell if the technology is developed.
No, I think this task is a lot farther out than you think it is, with a lot of technology left to be developed based on things that we still don't know about space.
At the moment we're barely able to put small disposable contraptions on that planet, not to mention all that's needed for a human to get there and survive.
So if anything if I had to guess I think it would be the opposite, we have 90% of the technology left to develop.
Hell, last I checked they still haven't even finished the new space suits, and that's such a small stepping stone to living on Mars.
musing about muskrat space program
@izaya It would take A LOT more money to make something like that feasible.
But the money being spent is getting us in that direction.
But it's a huge gain for those that the terrestrial internet service can't effectively provide for. You are again over simplifying with that framing, and so ignoring the reality of what's going on.
And the launches are not just for spaceborn internet provision, more oversimplification.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
@Peg33 That's not a flag of a country that doesn't exist.
@Peg33 I sure wish people would stop inflating the importance of Trump.
It only plays into the hands of Trump.
@dandrezner translation: this administration is struggling to handle its foreign policy
@simon_brooke as usual, this is a special interest spinning a tale and probably looking to get some donations by upsetting people.
I wish people would stop buying into this nonsense. But they get fooled over and over and keep going back to such sources.
No, the correct question is not is this vital to us.
The world is not so simple, black and white.
It takes a more mature analysis, one that considers the marginal value versus the marginal cost, is it worth a rocket launch to conduct scientific research analyzing this or that?
Is it vital that we have an internet? Well, there's definitely a marginal gain to having it, and a marginal cost.
So it's just silly to talk about vitality when looking at the tremendous engineering advancement that results in the opportunity for such a launch cadence.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
@lydiaconwell just because you continue to use a useful tool doesn't mean you back it.
It just means you recognize the value that using the tool gives you.
There's no cognitive dissonance there. There's just objective reality.
@InfamousLeopard383@c.im what in the world?
It was the extreme position that they should ignore the law and the history and empower a standin for Speaker to have all the powers of Speaker.
So they rejected the extreme position saying that we need to get on with the normal process. That's a moderate position.
So what you're citing here a rejection of the non-moderate path to say that moderates have been purged?
No, you have that backwards.
Well that's a silly thing to say.
Even if economic forecasts might be unreliable, they at least do have some science behind them, unlike horoscopes.
@junesim63 this take is naive, though.
I don't know why anybody takes seriously such cartoonish labeling like carbon mega bomb, but in any case, even in terms of the environment, this moved to natural gas is probably better than the practical alternatives.
We can't wave a magic wand and solve the energy needs of the world, we can only choose between different options with their own downsides. This option might be less bad.
And of course, in the end this is a legal process, Biden is not a dictator, and by law he is required to put aside authoritarian impulses when managing this permitting process.
We should be more serious about this sort of topic.
The comparison of Gaza with an open-air prison is one that has been pretty well discredited as a rhetorical talking point with little reason to it.
But it's something people parrot all too often.
It's entirely possible to call out bad journalism and identify misleading rhetoric without saying bombing is okay.
And I'd say we should.
We should be especially critical of those sources that confirm our biases.
@YamakaziTaiga@mastodon.social if you read Citizens United, it says the opposite.
@HappyHeathen@kolektiva.social
But none of that changes what actually happens.
It sounds like you're complaining about the way we think about what happens, but that doesn't change what happens.
In this system, government is empowered by voters. Every elected official was elected. Power comes from the source that is an election.
You and I apparently agree that the voters are sadly ignorant, mind fucked even. All right.
But these mind fucked voters still actively grant the power and actively vote for the officials who get into office.
It doesn't mean it's right, or it's good, or there is a better option, or there is no better option, all of these are side questions.
This is the system we're working with now. If you have a better one for goodness sake, let's work on improving it, but it is the reality now.
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:
