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
@j2kun I don't know if this is a helpful answer, but honestly: It depends on the controller.
Firstly, there are two completely different ways of implementing PID, one kind of looks backwards and one kind of looks forwards, and they give very different results.
That's not even getting into the details of the implementations, the quirks of each system.
So I know I'm ducking your question in a way, but it really does come down to, your system probably operates in a way completely different from so many other systems, so there is no standard answer to a question like this.
@Helderweb the justification is to try and prevent the deaths of more children.
There are no good solutions to this problem. There are only bad solutions, and the need to choose between bad options.
Tragically, the way the deck has been stacked to this point, people will die. Children will die. There is absolutely no way to avoid it.
@gratefuldread the article seems to actually support Cotton's case, laying out the grounds for his call for asking questions about the incident.
Even the answers that the article provides highlights that there was substance to his concerns.
@cspcypher I think the lesson isn't so much about how a quality is contested as it's about how people talk past each other when they use the same terminology to refer to completely different things.
It's a lesson in communication.
@MisuseCase I've been bludgined by factual reporting and reality.
It really stinks.
But this is the world we live in.
@gknauss it's pretty naive to describe eliminating poverty as simple.
@JoParkerBear Good to see Hamas run ministry admitting to the results of Hamas policies.
@HopelessDemigod Yeah, so I think that really helps to highlight the issue here, that you don't have money in the bank, rather you have a bank agreeing to pay you money, and if the bank fails then you have an insurance policy agreeing to pay you money.
I don't think this is splitting hairs. I think it is actually very important for people to realize that a deposit in the bank is a relinquishment of ownership of that money. It's important for a few reasons, ranging from the lack of accessibility to money that is no longer theirs through the social obligation of diverting tax resources to pay those insurance obligations.
@magitweeter I think that if you can't define wealthy then it's kind of silly to be talking about it.
It kind of hand waves away all of the substantial meaning of the term, and whatever point a person might be trying to make into abstract definitions that rely on someone else to make.
My entire point is to focus on the substantial aspects of wealth here. And your reply sounds like you are ducking that, setting aside the substantial aspects, and just floating in the hand waving abstraction.
These are real people's lives that are impacted. I want to talk about the real people, the real ways that are institutions function. I'm not so much interested in your intuition.
I actually don't think the topic of wealth requires any arguments to authority. It's more, what do YOU mean when you talk about wealth.
When we are talking about hoarding of wealth, well what do WE mean by that. What substantial resource do you think is being hoarded.
In the common usage, people do tend to measure wealth in dollar figures, or some other currency figures. It seems like you are saying you don't do that, and that's fine.
So in the end the question comes down to, what are you talking about?🙂
@forteller to be clear about what I'm saying, programs like peertube don't actually stream video over Fediverse. Instead, they make Fediverse posts that link to external services.
No different from linking a YouTube video in a post.
(As far as I am aware. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
This is no minor difference because it has huge implications for the scalability of the platform and the amount of resources that it takes to run an instance.
@DemDifference Oh I'm sorry I should have said 9 data points.
Which is definitely not a chart of 35 years.
@resuna no, and that's why I'm focused on the USA.
I'm certainly aware of that other countries have governments that aren't so focused on their people, but I think core to the US design is a focus on the democratic process. The US government was set up from scratch with a focus on giving people seats at the table.
I think that's a good thing, and sure, other cultures may have different opinions, but I've been clear that that's where I'm coming from.
So again, you focus on parties, and that's fine, but it's not my personal prioritization when I think about governance.
@HopelessDemigod but the banking system is so different these days than in 1929.
People don't really keep cash anymore, with banking reforms and the rise of the Federal Reserve.
Plus, streamlined modern avenues of investment increase the opportunity cost of holding cash instead of putting cash to work in other enterprises.
Maybe people SHOULD hold cash, but even the wealthy don't seem interested in hoarding federal reserve notes (I guess that's cash?) in vaults in their homes.
@Vincarsi you're missing that I do understand your perspective. It's just factually wrong.
It's not like you're the first person to buy into those myths about wealth and misunderstandings about how money works.
No, you're describing a perspective that's all too common. It's like talking to flat earthers who are laying out the same old story.
Yes, I know your perspective.
No, the facts don't support the theory you've been sold.
@magitweeter
Also keep in mind that having deposited money in the bank doesn't mean it's IN the bank. It just means the bank owes you, which is a very different thing.
We've all seen banks go under, leaving account holders short a bunch of the money they were owed.
Not to mention, you can get a loan against the money in the bank, even if it's just informal.
@HopelessDemigod but those 31% of millionaires, are they too not considering real estate, etc?
@compost@regenerate.social well it's not really possible given the way Fediverse works.
Each instance can set its own rules, including allowing all the bots and fake accounts it wants.
Without a centralized authority all that stuff is allowed.
@BeAware@social.beaware.live unfortunately, that's just how ActivityPub was designed.
It centralized around instances instead of users, unlike some other platforms, and we're kind of stuck with that decision.
@crittero I really don't like giving instances even more centrality on this platform.
I already disagree with the design choice to put them above users in this design, so proposals like making them the subreddits strikes me as doubling down on a questionable philosophy.
I do think of lemmy as one big aggregator, just with AP as its database/API. The instances just feed into it.
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:
