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
@Stinson_108 I mean, the in person argument went through many ways in which the article is not clear at all.
@plamobot It won't.
Hopefully we will stop giving so much attention to hysterical media accounts that claim otherwise.
At the end of the day, Kagan just isn't very bright.
She was a bad nomination to the Court, and I wish they had appointed someone better.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com No, that's not how the US system of government works.
The US values democracy more than that.
@HeavenlyPossum exactly! So that highlights that people want bitcoin!
@brinnbelyea@fosstodon.org @josemurilo
@brinnbelyea@fosstodon.org No that's not the argument.
Bitcoin provides value that is greater than the value of the energy that people are trading to get it.
That bitcoin can run on less electricity isn't some sort of excuse but rather it is highlighting how valuable bitcoin is to the people that put skin in the game and trade energy for Bitcoin.
YOU or I might not personally think bitcoin is that valuable, and that's fine, but other people do think it's that valuable, so they do trade for it.
@brinnbelyea@fosstodon.org No that's not the case at all.
It has nothing to do with owning everything on earth. It only has to do with buying energy to trade for something they value.
@HeavenlyPossum but it's not wasted in the sense that the people putting their own resources on the line do so because they value what they get in return.
It's like, people pay a whole lot of money for super bowl tickets. Is that money wasted? I wouldn't say so, because those people value super bowl tickets.
I don't, and that's fine, it's their money to spend the way they want.
Same thing here. People value bitcoin and so they trade their own energy for bitcoin.
Because they value it, regardless of whether you and I might.
@HeavenlyPossum it's not wasted, it's traded.
The people trading it value what they get in exchange.
Otherwise they wouldn't.
@brinnbelyea@fosstodon.org
You almost had it. The people willingly trading energy for crypto do so because they value the crypto.
Same as people turning trees into lumber. Those people value the lumber, and the people trading energy for crypto value the crypto.
@HeavenlyPossum not at all.
Bitcoin could be run from a solar panel and a car battery. It doesn't take that much energy to run the Bitcoin system.
However, people do decide that they would like to pay more in energy as they bid for new bitcoin. That is their choice, and It reflects the value of Bitcoin to each person exchanging extra energy for the Bitcoin.
Mining bitcoin doesn't have to be expensive. But people have decided it's worth more energy, so they trade more energy for it.
@enmodo No, you have it backwards.
The 2000 decision if anything emphasized different states applying the same standards to counting of votes. In fact, consistent standards was key to the ruling then.
Y'all are reaching really hard to try to justify a supreme court ruling that is simply not in the cards based on the arguments before the court.
Sometimes one side loses the case because it's simply not the side with the winning argument.
@hulavikih but those claims are simply not factually true
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com I mean he didn't tell the nation to inject bleach into their veins at all.
That was a lie that went viral without enough people stopping to check on whether it ever actually happened.
@dalfen Well there are examples like when he said his advisors didn't give him alternatives for the Afghanistan pull out, when the advisors later said they did, that provide exactly that sort of evidence
@kern really?
"My memory is so bad I let you speak" doesn't come across as particularly, well, coherent.
@Free_Press I mean, right. That's how the democratic process works.
No one is in charge, there is no authoritarian at the top of the GOP caucus, rather the independent representatives are accountable to their voters.
@josemurilo the energy is being spent to buy bitcoin.
It's not that bitcoin consumes it but that people are willing to trade it for the value they get for Bitcoin.
@ianhecht I mean, it just goes to prove that Florida's GOP did not ban those books.
The solution debunks the claimed problem.
@dalfen again, they didn't say they didn't find a crime.
And they also didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to warrant the conviction of any crime.
That's just not what document said, even your own highlighted parts.
All they said was that they didn't believe they were in a position to present it at trial, which is an entirely different matter.
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:
