volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@fkamiah17 where exactly does getting pregnant become a death sentence?

Every abortion regulation I'm familiar with allows procedures to save the life of the mother, and courts seem to promote that as well.
@Thebratdragon

@lovelylovely so first we can blame Obama for the lack of response then. Fine.

But second, now that Biden is president he COULD act, but he doesn't. That's on him when his words are so blunt.

(And yes, you can blame Trump too in the years between, but right now we're talking about Biden)

@fkamiah17

@fkamiah17 They didn't ignore the ICJ.

The ICJ just didn't come out with particularly significant orders or preliminary findings.

I know folks wanted a substantial outcome from the ICJ process, but that's really an issue with the ICJ.

@naferrell

If you're interested in some of the behind the scenes work, here's a discussion on the mastodon bug tracker about this.

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/10743

@JohnMFlores it's one of those cases where we certainly have technological ability to make it easier, but for various reasons we're just not solving that problem.

It makes me think in particular about all of the folks around here who are on crusades against those other platforms, and how that attitude stands in the way of building tools to help someone like you post to both fediverse and those others.

@alx I think part of it comes down to the software interfaces to Fediverse not giving users enough control over their own experiences so they get the experience they're looking for.

For example, here the public nature of the Fediverse platform invites everyone to comment with little control by the poster over what he sees, or even who sees his posts.

I really wish Fediverse developers would focus more on empowering users to control their experiences.

@hasani wow, it sounds like you're striving to ignore the simple fact of drivers driving their cars and being responsible for doing so, apparently because you don't like a public figure?

FSD didn't decide to drive. A driver decided to drive and turn on that feature.

One reason it's so important to hold drivers responsible for driving is specifically to caution them against causing exactly this sort of accident.

I personally don't care about Musk, so it's not compelling to ask someone like me to ignore the simple facts in the course of trying to make some point about that troll.

If that's your hobby horse, then great! But it seems pretty antisocial to me, and it will result in more crashes.

@CivilityFan Roe, which was absolutely not ignored in SCOTUS deliberations.

Rather, because they respected precedent, both Roe and generations of precedent that came after and even because of Roe, they wrote extensively about precedent in arriving at their ruling.

The tumult around Roe speaks exactly against your conclusion: it was a great example of how important precedent is to this court.

Should they be ignoring precedent as suggested above it would have been much easier to have settled the question. Instead, they respected precedent in their opinions, addressing precedent front and center.

@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@hasani

Again, if you want to blame Tesla for false advertising, great! If the advertising was as misleading as you say, then Tesla is to blame for false advertising.

But they didn't sell customers an autonomous vehicle, and they warned every driver not to treat their purchase as if it was autonomous.

The car did what it was sold as doing. No half baked defect there, the driver got what he bought, and some chose to misuse the product despite warnings not to.

Tesla is responsible for its advertising. It's not responsible for customers choosing to misuse what they bought.

@rhys the key is that a huge swatch of the country think the president's record is incredibly bad, rightly or wrongly.

It's all about perception these days. Facts are a bit out of reach for our society.

So it's looking far too close of an election, with Trump and Biden both being very unpopular, and whichever party chooses a different candidate is almost guaranteed the win.

It's amazing that both parties are willing to roll those dice instead of just taking the win.

@rhys one thing to keep in mind is that Musk didn't directly buy, and doesn't own, Twitter. He needed financing and other backers to raise the cash to buy it.

So now it's owned by a series of corporations that Musk holds stake in.

The point is that offloading Twitter can be kind of under the radar as he quietly lowers his own stake in the company, more turning a dial than flipping a switch.

@hasani If you want to charge Tesla with false advertising, then great. But keep the false in false advertising.

If they falsely advertised a product that they weren't selling that just highlights that the customer bore responsibility to use the product that they did buy as per warnings and instructions, not treat it as if the false product was what they purchased.

I blame the drivers because at the end of the day, on the road, we need to emphatically put the responsibility on drivers to operate their vehicles safely. Anyone getting behind the wheel must bear responsibility for their decisions as they operate their multi-ton, high speed machines.

Tesla's product seems to have done exactly what it was sold as doing, including relying on drivers being prepared to take over at a moment's notice.

You can charge Tesla with false advertising, but it's ridiculous to go down this road of decrying a product as not doing something it wasn't supposed to do based on advertisements that you say were advertising something not being sold.

Yeah, let's blame the driver because at the end of the day they made bade decisions.

@OkayKay@ottawa.place

I think it's one of those things that depends on what experience a person wants out of the platform, one of those minor ways in which a person can influence their interactions.

Personally, I think it's too much of a firehose around here to keep track of different people, so I don't look for personalities, but substance.

If an account is publishing interesting things, then it doesn't really matter to me who might be running the account. It's just a faceless account in the river of posts.

But if the posts are worthwhile or informative or thought provoking, I want to see more of that.

And if the stream posts uninteresting stuff later I un-follow.

But I know others want different things out of their time.

@TimWardCam well, it's mainly something politicians have to say when they have to say something but have nothing substantial to say.

@fkamiah17

@jpetazzo I've been watching the company--and occasionally owning stock in it--forever. I was and am a big fan.

And what you're saying is exactly the picture I get.

They broke on to the scene with some really clever innovations, some approaches to machine control, some algorithms, really interesting solutions to problems that go beyond simple product engineering.

But now the rest of the world caught up, and their areas of innovation are no longer the ones that really matter. And that lightening didn't strike twice--they didn't find a new way to tackle a new problem.

That doesn't take away from what they did.

One way to think of it by analogy is as if someone invents an amazing algorithm to operate computers with limited memory but a few years later the market is churning out RAM so cheaply that it becomes effectively limitless.

Still a brilliant solution, just to a problem that no longer looms.

@tess

@hasani but not as it was sold or as instructed.

A person overlooking their particular instructions as they try to emulate their own interpretation of some advertisement is, if anything, still their own bad decision, and not the product going off to kill them.

@CivilityFan

You left off the rest of the sentence, " for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

So their consideration here is not to speak generally and tackle all possible circumstances, but only the situation as they describe it.

That doesn't mean it's not precedent setting. Other similar situations would be expected to follow the same disposition.

By cutting the sentence in half and only looking at the first half, much less the following paragraph that lends further clarification, people are able to twist the meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@CivilityFan the amount of time these justices spend citing precedent would suggest that precedent does, indeed, mean something.

They don't ignore precedent as meaningless. Quite the opposite. They spend a ton of time and ink addressing it because it has such meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun