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
@MugsysRapSheet I started to pull up a link to the FAA application, but let me instead focus on what you said:
SpaceX flies self-landing boosters almost literally every day now.
So why do YOU think SpaceX decided not to try for orbit?
@deathkitten so I try to mean this helpfully, but the tone of your reply comes across as yet another case of proposing to talk AT people instead of to them, with this sense of educating at them instead of discussing and convincing them, meeting them in the middle.
There are different types of people, and the ones who are open to being educated are probably already on your side. The others won't respond well to being educated, but instead need to be invited over.
That's a problem I see all too often in the world, folks with the best of intentions engaging rhetorical strategies that end up counterproductive, actually turning off the very people they need to convince.
@matt5sean3 sorry to hear that, and yeah, I know a few people who have been laid off because they tried to do the right thing instead of playing the game.
I don't know if that's your story too, but it definitely happens.
volkris
boosted
Me, finishing another long day at the tortilla factory: "Well, that's a wrap!"
@dangillmor keep in mind, we voted for this situation.
It's not that democracy is fragile. It's that people vote for dumb things.
Every one of the representatives in Congress was elected by the democratic process. And if we want change we need to stop re-electing the same dumbasses.
We re-elect them election after election, so we approve of this stuff. And we should probably not.
@matt5sean3 well most importantly keep in mind that bureaucracy is about individual employees trying to maintain their relevance so they can keep getting paid for what they do.
Whether it is about submission of information or being a pain in the ass is really secondary. It's about that person at that keyboard trying to remain relevant and keep their job.
@rticks@mastodon.social well that's my point, to call out the undefensible, and I sure wish more people on this platform would join me.
@MugsysRapSheet well think about it this way, consider the design of the mission.
Why were they ditching the booster in the Gulf instead of having it return to land so that it could be reused? Why didn't they even open the possibility for making the ship orbital?
Everything about this mission was designed with the expectation that the rocket was going to explode.
Everything about the applications to the FAA, all of the notices sent out to marine traffic, the decision not to try to land the booster, all of it.
Again I'm sorry that you didn't see these reports ahead of the launch, but that just means you need better news sources. Because it wasn't a secret, and if you need evidence, just look at the design of the mission.
If SpaceX really thought this lunch was anything approaching the final, operational rocket that it would have tried to reuse the booster. They didn't because they knew it wouldn't be from the beginning.
@_9CL7T9k8cjnD_ I got a chuckle about your post grouping people based on grouping people
@DamienMarieAtHope
@Ferrichrome really it's that I want to call attention to this issue that really leads us to a very unfortunate place in society, where people are divided into different camps because without faith in journalism they end up believing entirely different sets of facts.
NPR giving up audience so willingly is both a symptom and a cause for that very antisocial situation.
If people aren't hearing from NPR then they're going to be hearing from someone like Alex Jones or Trump or whoever else.
I don't think it's good that NPR basically handed its microphone to them.
@vruz@mastodon.social done!
@lauren Meh.
One issue is that people disagree on what constitutes hate speech.
@vruz@mastodon.social far right libertarian?
I'd say most libertarians stand in opposition to the far right.
@cdarwin this is one of those cases where the theory persists because of reluctance to actually definitively answer the question.
Yeah I know it's annoying for officials to have to deal with this kind of thing, but that's part of governance in a democratic system. The people ask annoying questions, but that's how people are, and officials need to be responsive to them because if they aren't then these theories grow in the vacuum.
@MugsysRapSheet if you didn't know they were expected to blow up, then I don't think you were listening to a broad variety of sources, because pretty much every source I had been hearing from pointed out that these were only tests with a high likelihood of blowing up before splashing down.
So again I would encourage you to broaden your news sources, at least. If I was to go farther I would say to stop listening to the ones that misled you, but at least get more reporting from different places.
These two ships were brand new and they were attempting things that had a very high likelihood of not going right the first time.
Yes, they were expected to blow up. In fact the detonation system that you refer to was in place specifically because there was a high likelihood that it would have to be used because these ships were unlikely to make it all the way.
@girlabtvillage guess what doctors are?
Well in most countries anyway, they tend to be private sector actors.
They don't work for free.
@MatWright yeah, they really broke the process during COVID when the independent advisors weren't giving the answers that were wanted from them, so they just stopped asking.
I don't know if they ever put the process back together, but I can imagine it did a tremendous amount of damage.
@MugsysRapSheet the problem with your comparison is that you are comparing a production vehicle against a R&D platform.
The two starships that were launched were expected to blow up. They were pathfinder missions to collect data that would eventually result in a ship that won't blow up.
If you really want to make this comparison against space shuttle then you need to include all of the rockets that blew up before the shuttle was finalized, and that's not even getting into the difference in capability between the two platforms.
@charmainewimpiris you've never heard an NPR station crow about its state association?
I actually find that hard to believe since I've lived in various regions of the US, and the local stations always proudly identified their affiliations wherever I was living.
But yeah, that's my answer to your question. Thanks for asking. I still don't get why you thought the question was particularly important, but apparently you didn't like my answer so ::shrug::
@knova being off Twitter means that NPR is giving up access to connecting to readers on Twitter.
And all over a grudge that gives critics of NPR more ammunition to call the institution out for putting opinion over solid reporting.
And to what benefit? Giving up audience voluntarily while wearing such opening for criticism on the sleeve... why?
It really gives journalism as a whole a black eye exactly when people are already tuning out because they've lost faith, exactly over stuff like this.
Again, to what benefit? I see only downside to those choices.
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:
