volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@TNLNYC they did use it.

The problem is that they didn't all agree that they would all back the result of the vote, and so it didn't matter.

Ranked voting can help you figure out the candidate with the most support, but in this particular case they mathematically need almost unanimous support, and ranked voting can't help with that.

@spaceflight I think a better way to put it would be that they identified a potential problem, but more study will be needed to determine the actual environmental impact.

As in, here's a thing. What's the impact of the thing? Not sure yet, but at least now we know to go look.

@bazkie I'd say if anything at that point it's more along the lines of social expectations of polite behavior rather than responsibility.

You know, it's polite to hold a door or say hello to your co-workers in ways that promote a good working environment.

Part of the problem is that when you start talking about things a person didn't do you're also comparing their behavior against a standard that they might not even be aware of.

You know, if I do something then I can point at the thing I did and know that I did it. But, if there's something you would have liked me to do? Well, there could be an infinite list of things I didn't know that I didn't do 🙂

There are a whole lot of complications to the idea of holding people guilty for things they didn't do, and that's the practical, beyond the logical issues that themselves raise all sorts of issues with our conceptions of the world.

@Jimijamflimflam

@Nonilex the problem is that this sounds like Mark Meadows admitting his own guilt, but he has immunity, but without providing a smoking gun that would implicate Trump.

@chad I don't think anyone in there thinks they can get the overwhelming support necessary since the wackos refused to play ball and the Democrats are putting them in the driver's seat.

It's a mathematically impossible situation at this point.

They know it.

@freemo what was the solution?

@NanoBookReview Well it's complicated in a very important way: since policing is primarily a local or state matter, the Supreme Court has to have a certain level of deference to the other governments involved, requiring a high bar to call them out on individual cases.

This is critical because of how it points us to the importance of reforming local and state governments and laws, as they are the primary setters of police policy.

If you just skip ahead and talk about the Supreme Court, it lets all of those local actors unaccountable for being the real ones at the heart of this problem.

But of course, they love to avoid accountability.

@Jimijamflimflam One doesn't aid through inaction.

That's a logical contradiction, and echoes an acceptance of punishing someone for something they didn't do.

@marynelson8 The procedure for counting Electoral College votes doesn't leave it up to the Speaker, fortunately.

I don't know where this story is coming from, but I do see it going around, and it's not in line with the US voting system.

@prefec2 I get the impression from the screenshot that he was beginning to provide the alternative, but whoever took the screenshot cut it off @taylorlorenz

@prefec2 is that people who have been selected are not qualified then why would he use the phrase independent of their merits?

To me that pretty explicitly says that his point is NOT they are unqualified.

I think you're misreading the quote.

@taylorlorenz

@oldguy52 SCOTUS doesn't rule on science, though. It has neither the expertise nor the authority to such rulings.

That kind of decision gets made in Congress, and SCOTUS merely reinforced the laws that Congress has made, decisions that themselves should be scientific.

Whether the president's authority to regulate huge swaths of the area of the country should or should not be expanded is up to Congress. SCOTUS would be acting outside of those very scientific processes should it impose its own will on the law.

@prefec2 you're ducking his point, though.

Musk says WP is inherently hierarchical, and your reply here basically confirmed that by describing how the hierarchy is organized.

Alright.

Musk goes on to say that the people higher in the hierarchy, the ones you said were elected or selected, show up with their biases, which is only human. You didn't address that, but it was his point.

I also see that the screenshot cuts off something about community notes, which is probably key context to his statement.

@taylorlorenz

@tc_morekindness well, it doesn't mean changing the Constitution, as the Constitution allows each chamber to set its own rules.

But the thing is, we elected these people, and we keep re-electing them. And there's little sign that we aren't going to re-elect the members who voted us into this situation.

We got the government we voted for, that we're apparently approving of, so what needs to change is us and our votes.

ANYWAY, the problem is that I don't think *Democrats* are open to any reasonable powersharing based on their voting positions so far.

They went scorched earth on this, so I don't expect them to pivot now.

It seems like they're winning the messaging game, so I don't think they have much motivation to pivot now.

@Apanthropist_1 I'd say the problem isn't that you measure the economy by how well the rich are doing.

It's that maybe measurement of the economy isn't the answer to the question you should be asking.

IOW, let's not focus on the economy when what we're talking about are the ones the economy is leaving behind.

It's asking the wrong question.

@prismnpen I wish the article had actually cited legislative language, or legal language, or case law, or whatever so we could see the actual details of the defense.

Without that it's hard to identify solutions, as we'd need new language to modify existing language, which like I said, means we need to see the legal language.

The anecdotes are fine to illustrate what we need to address, but without presenting the broken piece leading to those outcomes we can't really talk about how to best fix it.

@jayreding and don't forget that Democrats could simply decline to vote.

They don't have to support any Republican candidate. They don't have to "help" Republicans. They could simply stop actively engaging and thus empowering the GOP hardliners.

@Setok that's right, some complaints are that the Mastodon/UI level and some are deeper.

Some are solvable and some not.

BTW, if you weren't familiar with the history, some things like the lack of quoting in Mastodon were due to the strong personal opinions of developers who thought they were simply bad and should never exist here.

So that's another issue: sometimes it's not lack of funding or developer resources. It's developers intentionally choosing to leave out functionality they don't like.

@lari @petri

@petri yuck.

IMO this highlights an attitude around Fediverse that isn't the grace and light that so many Fediverse users make the platform out to be all about.

@Setok @lari