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
This sounds like a reach. The simpler explanation is that Biden simply lacked the executive energy to act, while Trump with the understanding of a 5-year-old, and the energy of one, is just poking buttons kind of at random.
There's no need to assume either understood anything about a larger pact or about the larger world.
@fkamiah17 this gives the guy way too much credit.
He's killing them because he doesn't know anything about how the law works, he was told there's a bad guy in a boat, something about fentanyl, and then he ordered strikes.
No reason to reach for any story more complicated than that.
His brain has turned to mush, regressed to the state of being a child, so he's acting with the understanding of a child.
#Trump canceling a meeting with China on account of them not sending the US rare earth metals is just, it would be delicious if it didn't have real world implications... and wasn't yet another instance of a pattern that's gotten so repetitive.
Once again a giant accomplishment that Trump celebrated and crowed about--China bowing to him to send those resources, showing how awesome and nearly godlike he is--didn't end up working out.
Oops.
And once again to conservatives this is the fault of the other guy, not the one who lied about such a tremendous accomplishment.
Siiiiiigh.
@MikeDunnAuthor You're still missing the argument.
Pseudoscience? Discredited? Completely lacking in any sort of scientific rigor or positive outcomes or on and on and on?
None of that matters in the slightest because they aren't questions of law.
Again, it is not the role of the Court to judge science or medicine. Its job is to speak on matters of law, not science or medicine.
If we would like to amend the US Constitution to permit legislation restricting speech on account of International consensus that it's bad, we can do that. But until we do, the Court is bound to rule on the law as it stands, not as we would prefer it, even if we think our preferred law would better promote science and all kinds of other good social things.
That's why we have an amendment process.
@RachelThornSub I'm not surprised.
The drama that's come up seems pretty niche to me, very interesting only to a small number of people.
Remember: a nationalized #Starlink would be controlled by #Trump right now.
Whatever you nationalize will still be controlled by the opposition once the pendulum inevitably swings back in their direction.
That's one GREAT reason to oppose #nationalization in general.
@MikeDunnAuthor that misses the argument here.
It's NOT that torture is protected free speech but that talking to people is not torture.
As for the science, it's not the role of the Court to judge science. They're experts on law, not science, and often times poor results come out of courts wading into matters of science.
The Court is to apply the law as they receive it.
@HamonWry Well no, that's not how the Supreme Court appointment process works.
Presidents nominate and must gain approval of the Senate. The majority leader has no authority or ability to appoint a justice himself.
So no, the story that McConnell stacked the court is just false because that's not how that process works.
@maeve_bkk no, that gets the case backwards.
The issue before SCOTUS is that lower courts found section 2 to REQUIRE racial gerrymander.
The argument is that in requiring racial gerrymander, section 2 is unconstitutional.
The confusion in Louisiana v. Callais highlights that VRA may have had best of intentions, but is kind of a mess to implement.
@maeve_bkk@kolektiva.social no, that gets the case backwards.
The issue before SCOTUS is that lower courts found section 2 to REQUIRE racial gerrymander.
The argument is that in requiring racial gerrymander, section 2 is unconstitutional.
The confusion in Louisiana v. Callais highlights that VRA may have had best of intentions, but is kind of a mess to implement.
@solarbird remember, the current Republican strategy is not about winning but about fighting.
They just want to fight. Republican voters often explicitly say that, they want fighters. Winners? No, they elected a loser after all. And so much of the administration is staffed by losers. But they'll fight, they'll fight themselves right into a loss.
This is so important I think: Republicans want to fight. Winning is secondary, they just want the fight. The WWE cage match.
@statsguy No, it's pretty much the opposite.
Democrats are complaining that Republicans aren't imposing on states. Often enough they even accuse Republicans of taking too much power because the power they are referring to is the prosecutorial discretion NOT to impose on states.
Democrats complain that Republicans seek the power not to impose power on the states.
I know that gets into confusing double negatives, but it is what it is.
It's also, of course, not 100% coherent. A lot of these politicians go back and forth and are hypocritical, but this is the general rule.
@berniethewordsmith building on what other replies said, think about it this way:
When you need to put a couple of shapes on the screen that is thousands of individual pixels that need to be updated all at the same time. GPUs, graphical processing units, are designed so that they can update as many of those pixels all at once. That's why they are specialized for working in parallel, doing a bunch of things at the same time, because all of those different parts of the screen all need to be updated at the same time.
In contrast, if you need to do something like, I don't know, adding up your bank account, a traditional CPU does that as a single process, single calculation, as quickly as possible. It does one thing as fast as possible to get one single number as a result.
The current type of AI happens to need to do a whole lot of things in parallel so it is more like the GPU needing to update all the pieces of the screen at the same time. It's KIND OF like the AI needs to read a thousand books all at the same time as it's training. That's not a perfect analogy, but it's close.
People need to remember that there are so many issues with this.
For one, the documents they want to see might not exist at all. For another, even if the documents do exist they might not say what they expect. And then if they do exist and they say something noteworthy, Congress can't really force the executive branch to release them. And even if the executive branch decides to release them, it might be legitimately too incompetent to actually do it.
There are so many different things that can go wrong to prevent the thing people are getting excited about.
That's why this is rightly considered to be something of a stunt.
volkris
boosted
Liberals need to stop calling conservatives Nazis because it's dehumatizing! -- #Hannity, apparently not knowing that Nazis were indeed human #USPolitics
@moira is
He's not confused. He's correct.
There's no first amendment right to be in the press corps.
Really this is just fundamentally how decentralization works. This is how scaling works. This is mathematical, fundamental laws of physics sorts of things.
If you want true decentralization then it's going to be resource intensive. There is mathematically no avoiding that.
Fediverse is badly coded (IMO) but it tries to avoid these issues by not actually being decentralized. Federation means it's centralized around instances, not decentralized, but centralized around instances.
BlueSky proposes to fulfill the promise, but there is no avoiding that the promise comes with costs.
volkris
boosted
#Kilmeade, missing that he is potentially identifying the problem: To be a reporter traveling with the president is really rough because the guy doesn't sleep! He'll wander out and talk to the press anytime around the clock. He doesn't sleep! #Trump #USPolitics
@light Yeah, the options might not be easy, but at least there are options, unlike on fediverse where you're just screwed by the instance centralization.
That's the point.
It might be inconvenient, and maybe with time there can be systems to improve the user experience, but on fediverse there's just no way at all.
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:
