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
@alfredo_liberal@universeodon.com
If you've only seen the current events filtered through your particular echo chambers and preferred sources, what makes you think you have any idea what's going on there?
It honestly sounds like you are proud that you haven't been following the actual happenings in the chamber.
The problem is, the Fediverse design is absolutely not anarchist. In fact it solidifies control of systems and other people into management of the different instances.
It's not actually decentralization. It's further centralization into different instances, even as they happen to be federated.
So I, for one, really don't know what you're on about.
But every one of the things you say you need is provided by or is involved with a market.
You're asking for a marketized approach, even if the market is subsidized by taxation of others.
Taking from the many to give to the few, it is a tall order.
Unfortunately that runs into a complication of running a federated system.
It runs into real engineering and scalability problems since it requires more and more processing power and network traffic to transmit all of that data to all of the different databases that would be required to be maintained to do such searches.
It's a feature that a lot of people want, but it's one that would be very expensive to implement, so it's a tall order.
It's just a cost of trying to set up a system that is federated instead of completely centralized where there would just be one database.
@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby
The act of Congress authorizes spending.
It does not require spending, since that would be a violation of the constitutional separation of power.
Congress effectively says that the president may spend money out of the Treasury, but if the money doesn't exist in the Treasury anyway, then the law is moot.
If I tell you that you can spend up to $1,000 out of the cash in your wallet, but you only have $20 in there, then you can spend 20. There's no conflict there, no contradiction, I have authorized you to spend a bunch of money but it's a ceiling that is subject to what is actually available to spend.
So no, under the Constitution the Congress cannot obligate the executive branch to spend money. It is an equal branch, not a subservient branch. Congress can authorize, as per the Constitution, but it can't actually spend for itself.
Nope. For example, I have no idea who you are as a person, and that doesn't bother me.
Whoever you are, if you're interested in talking, cool.
Or more to the point, if you're interested in talking in the non-troll persona you've been speaking with, cool. :)
You might be the world's biggest troll as a person, but this identity of yours isn't, so I'm happy to keep exchanging, because it's not the person that we engage through here.
(I assume you're not actually trollish person, but the point is, it's the identity I'm talking to, regardless of whether you actually are a trollish person or not)
But as a person, I don't know if you're employed, but if you are, aren't there some things you wouldn't want your employer to see you talking about? Having that work-life separation? Being able to express yourself outside of any fear for how it might impact your career?
We all wear different masks in daily life. We talk to parents differently from how we talk to friends.
Really, those are all cases of having different identities.
@david @6al@misskey.social @tedcurran
They're there offering the proof for anyone who wants it. They can prove it.
If nobody takes them up on that offer, that's on the ones declining to check.
@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby
It is true that the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It is about borrowing, not spending.
However, it is clearly false that the debt limit simply allows that financing seeing as that's an executive branch action, not a legislative branch action.
Yes, under the US system of government the executive branch is supposed to be working to gain additional spending and borrowing and other authorizations, but that's why it's even more important to call out self-interested spin like this.
The executive branch obligates, not the legislative branch, which can only authorize.
Prosecution always involves strategic tradeoffs, even in simple cases where it's merely the raw dollars needed to pay employees to see someone through the court system for an obvious commitment.
Then there are more complicated cases, for example offering a plea deal in exchange for cooperation that would reign in more important targets.
When it comes to a case like Trump, there is the very real tradeoff where it makes him more powerful, more likely to be reelected, and even more personally wealthy--and same with his family--if charges are brought against him.
Honestly, I'd say the worst punishment for him would be to leave him for obscurity, a failed candidate rejected by voters.
That might be the best justice for him, even worse than what punishment the law could dole out.
What? I find hashtags extremely useful here.
Heck, I found your message through hashtags.
Do you mean a person to person app with high security?
Fediverse is probably not the right platform for that, as it's really focused on broadcasting content widely and publicly.
It's entire predictable considering the story such people sell. Not insane, just common sense.
When a person advertises himself as attacked, and one attacks him, his sales pitch is confirmed and he has more fodder for his ads.
Over and over there has been this rush to attack Trump in exactly the ways that play into his hands, into his rhetoric. He WANTS that, because without it people might see how hollow he really is.
People have to decide for themselves which is more important, going through the motions of an indictment or trying to make him go away.
The phrase cutting off the nose to spite the face always comes to mind.
@gwaldby But this fact check is itself full of clearly wrong things.
For example, no, the debt ceiling is not "about paying bills that lawmakers have already committed to." How can I say that? Because those commitments are an executive branch function, not up to the legislative branch.
This reporter seems unfamiliar with basic civics, basic knowledge of the way the US government is organized.
Congress appropriates and authorizes the executive branch to spend. They do not, and constitutionally cannot, commit the other branch to spend as that would violate the idea of coequal branches.
This #factcheck, like so many, doesn't pass factchecking.
The way forward really depends on whether his state has a recall process. Some jurisdictions do, some don't.
Beyond that, his constituents elected him, so their choice must be honored, no matter how much buyer's remorse they may now have.
Voters get what they vote for, for better or worse.
@jlogancarey@mastodon.art
Nope!
:)
But to be serious, there is no fediverse moral code. That would represent the centralization that federation exists to avoid.
It's just different instances all tailoring themselves to behave to the wants and needs of their particular users.
I'd say we could suggest that people hashtag advertisement on advertisements, but beyond that we should recognize that without strong algorithms it's a tough idea to address.
@david @6al@misskey.social @tedcurran
Oh but there IS a controlling authority to issue a cert: each instance is a controlling authority issuing or presenting certs through the following process.
Fediverse is all based around centralized instances handling all of that for their users, and as such they have latitude to go about their processes as they see fit.
For better or worse.
I don't follow.
Just because I can have an identity that multiple platforms recognize doesn't mean I can't have more than one.
Heck, I have multiple email accounts for work and personal stuff, and both of them are recognized in multiple places around the web.
Same thing. Some people will have one identity that they use in one place, some people will have multiple identities that they use in multiple places, and people will also choose the other perturbations, just like they do with email accounts today.
Aaah, I only use these systems through their native websites, not through any apps, even on mobile devices, so I figured that's what @teledyn meant by apps originally.
In other words, my reader IS my server software, and yes, that's where I suspect the holdup is.
But that's in contrast to the holdup being in the language that the servers/instances/apps use to speak to each other.
That the language seems capable of it means it's less of a hurdle to have the other links in the chain implement it.
@6al@misskey.social @tedcurran @david
Good point, and that would also help with some of the revocation issues brought up in a thread I came across.
Maybe it's a bit complicated because Fediverse IS centralized, just centralized to each of the federated instances.
(We should reconsider calling it decentralized. Maybe federated instead of decentralized.)
I don't know how nicely the centralized instances would play with differently centralized CAs.
Although with https already in the mix, I suppose they already are.
What a mess :)
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
You DON'T know the identity of the *person* you're dealing with anyway. You only know the identity that you're dealing with.
This is all expression, to some level artistic. I don't want anybody trolling, the same way I don't want anybody making bad music, but when you empower people to express themselves, well ::shrug::
If a person wants two identities, one friendly and the other trolling, that's their expression and their choice.
Hope it works out for them.
Like I said, someone with a professional identity and a hobby identity seems pretty reasonable, right? Makes sense?
Well, once you empower users like that some are going to do things you or I might not approve of. That's how a user-centric platform goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog
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:
