volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jerrygoff No, numbers like that were debunked the last time they came around, but they keep circulating on social media unfortunately.

No, that's not how this legislation works out. A whole lot of sensationalized media outfits get clicks promoting this kind of stuff, but it's not true.

@foolishowl No, that was an intentional feature to promote privacy sorts of interests.

The primary purpose of an IP address is not to be static and allow anyone on the internet to address you or anything like that. It's just to establish communication channels.

IPv6 provides more flexibility for an in point to have static or dynamic addressing depending on how it wants to be reached.

This is absolutely a feature, an intentional one.

@kdwarn Yes.

And I think it's really worth emphasizing that a lot of what Trump is doing is actually relinquishing power. This is a great example of it.

He's undermining himself, undermining his own ability to influence the country and the world, with moves like this.

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, it is what it is, and it's worth noticing.

@Tharpa about oh civilized people should want them to be able to express their positions so we can be really clear about what we're rejecting.

@lianna@mastodon.gamedev.place Yeah I've heard that claim go around, and it always seemed like a leap. Occam's razor has simpler explanations:

Traditional patterns of reproduction really explain it all pretty simply, both the cost of a family taking on the child that the daughter births and the disappointment in a son that isn't out there engaging in reproductive behaviors.

No need to go into any deeper psychology than that. It's just people hung up on the old ways when reproduction was so critical to survival.

@lunarood

@joeinwynnewood keep in mind that a large reason Trump was elected and then reelected is because people were already experiencing that sort of thing in their real lives.

Regular folk had become less and less satisfied with how the government was going, and with that so many just gave up and elected the guy promising to flip the table.

So there's a confusion of cause and effect here. It's not so much because of what the Republicans are doing that people expect less from the government, it's because people experienced less from the government that they elected Republicans.

It's an important lesson to learn.

@mstarace this headline kind of gets the story backwards.

He didn't cave to Republicans. He caved to the Democrats in the Senate who wanted to move the legislation forward and avoid being bashed for shutting down the federal government.

That's really the central role of the Senate minority leader. The two Senate leaders don't answer to the American public, they answer to their own caucuses, and the guy did what the caucus wanted him to do.

@georgebaily It's not a new idea, and the tremendous real world problems with it aren't new either.

The biggest problem I have with it is the way it doubles down on the negative concept of tying people to their jobs. We really should push for life outside of employment, but this sort of thing only serves to emphasize the centrality of what a person does for a living to their whole life.

There are other practical problems, but for me that's the biggest one.

@tehuti88 Data sampling is a real thing, you know. It's part of the scientific method. You shouldn't be so quick to just dismiss it.

Now if you have solid data that refutes the claim, bring it forward!

But at this point your post is pretty much anti-scientific, and I think it's important to realize that. Careful what you're attacking.

@Climatehistories his DOGE-funded emergency response team will be in charge?

That's not how the federal government works. You're repeating nonsense here.

@HamonWry He's fighting against Democrats who are making a strategic blunder, wanting to shoot themselves in the foot so that they wouldn't be as able to fight back against Trump going forward.

That's where his fight is. He's trying to save the Democrats from themselves, having to fight both the suicidal call to shut down government and the administration at the same time.

@Thelonious08 do you see how silly it sounds to talk about voting with the fascist?

If a person really is such a fascist then votes wouldn't matter either way.

Statements like that just sound crazy.

@salixsericea If Trump isn't less popular and doesn't have the backing of as many in our democratic system the next time this discussion comes up, then nothing really matters anyway.

And that's why folks need to fight to convince their fellow countrymen over to their side.

The fight is in the population, not in DC. If people want Trump to govern, well, then the fight is lost.

@TCatInReality I don't think voting against continuing the operations of the US government is the salvation from self-destruction that you think it is...

@georgetakei

The voting roll:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00128.htm

@PaulWermer You're getting the Supreme Court ruling backwards.

It absolutely did not say that the president can do whatever he wants as an official act. What it said was that a president cannot prosecute a former president for something that was legal on the grounds of it being a lawful, official action.

@Nonilex

@xgranade What in the world?

No, the Senate does not have the authority to sign away their powers. Their powers are codified above them, and it would take constitutional amendment for them to give up their powers.

All the rest is people just running around with exaggerated craziness that doesn't understand basic civics.

@moira

@remixtures since Musk doesn't have that legal authority, in part specifically to avoid conflicts of interest, I don't think you're seeing what you think you're seeing.

(Or more to the point, a lot of people are running around spreading misinformation about what's going on, and unfortunately it's spreading quite easily on social media, so a lot of people are seeing things that just aren't really true)

@gottalaff.bsky.social meh, not really.

Keep in mind that with the way the US system is structured, lower courts are bound to rule in certain ways even if they themselves know the ruling is incorrect just based on the body of law of being handed to them. Often only the SCOTUS can fix faulty precedents.

It's not that they own the Supreme Court. It's that only the Supreme Court can fix the law in the US system, so there's nothing particularly strange about losing in lower courts until finally getting to the ones that can actually resolve the cases.