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
@lehto Thanks!
Often I see artists post DJ mixes to some combination of YouTube, SoundCloud, MixCloud, herethis.at, and straight podcast, and I always really wish I knew which way to go to get the DJ maximal support.
Oh, no, not at all. That's not how this system works.
Mastodon doesn't receive those replies, boosts, and likes at all. It's not an implementation choice; since Mastodon doesn't receive the signal it couldn't display the reply/boost/like whether it wanted to or not.
@supernovae@universeodon.com @John
@supernovae@universeodon.com
Mastodon doesn't have any control over missing replies, unfederated likes, etc.
It's like blaming your iPhone when the cell phone tower goes down and you miss a call.
Mastodon doesn't receive those likes at all because Fediverse/ActivityPub doesn't hand them to Mastodon, so it's due to Fediverse, not Mastodon.
THAT's why it's important to distinguish between the different pieces here.
Otherwise you're just calling up Apple to complain when they can't do anything to fix the cell phone company.
Well that's what the federation of instances is about. That's one huge benefit of Fediverse not being one big mass but rather different instances that are coupled together dynamically.
So people get on big generic Fediverse instances first, and they can apply to move to better, more focused, more culturally homogeneous instances later.
There's no cultural revolution there. It's how it was set up, and how it is now.
It just needs to be emphasized.
Yes, people do understand, and they talk about how they prefer Facebook or Twitter or Fediverse or TikTok or whatever based on the different ways that algorithms choose different content to present to them.
You illustrate this pretty well as you seem to like that "sense of a system as you are living in it over time." A TON of people are not looking for that experience and are turned off by it!
Like I said, a diversity of preferences. Some like the firehose and thrive in it. Some hate it as overstimulation.
It's like introvert vs extrovert, not to mention practicalities of how it fits into peoples' daily lives and what they have time for.
Can anyone confirm first hand if this really captures common levels of Bandcamp payout? How about other such platforms?
And for that matter, if a DJ posts an hour-long set to YouTube and a couple of other sites, how is the payment to them from those sites for that sort of content?
But then, the report wasn't about communicating new science, so we should be careful about framing the language that way.
It needs to be viewed in the context of operational briefing and even political vocabulary. The language was intended for often nontechnical administrators, primarily, trying to get across to them a certain idea about what the analysts came to believe.
It's like how "preponderance of evidence" has particular meaning inside a courtroom. The context needs to be considered.
But yes, that confidence statement should NEVER be left out of the reporting.
@supernovae@universeodon.com @John
And FWIW, I am OK with those things in terms of the federation model.
Your local instance is tight knit, but those factors come up when leaving the boundaries of your instance and venturing out into the crazy world outside.
Also, those elements are there for technical reasons, as part of the idea of moving toward a decentralized platform.
They're the tradeoff, and I'd say a reasonable trade.
@supernovae@universeodon.com But you're missing the point that your complaints aren't about Mastodon itself but about the underlying Fediverse, of which Mastodon is only a client.
The reason this matters is because it's about identifying the responsible piece, especially if we want to improve or fix it.
#Mastodon can't change the issues you're bringing up. #ActivityPub that runs the #Fediverse might be improved, as that's where those behaviors live, so that's where the finger needs to be pointed.
@HistoPol I think perhaps you are projecting a bit and underestimating the value that the #algorithm brings to people who prefer their news feeds more curated than firehose.
Keep in mind, it's no secret to people that there are alternatives. Even just #Facebook and #Twitter organize content in very different ways, and everyone is aware of that. They choose the one they prefer even knowing there are alternatives.
I get that you and many do prefer the chronological algorithm of #Mastodon and that's certainly valid. It doesn't diminish that, though, to caution that such a strategy frustrates so many who want different out of their social media.
It's important to remember the diversity of preference out there.
In theory, it's more likely.
But in practice, not so much.
After all, this is exactly how the federal government is set up, to push back against partisan instincts by setting the executive and legislative branches against each other, giving them opposing incentives.
Partisan alliances fracture when the executive and legislative branch figures have opposite goals, as by their positions they do.
@SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @morganalafee @kaydenpat
Well that's a silly thing to say.
All you need to know is something changed? You don't need to know what it changed to, or why, or where it changed from? All of that is irrelevant?
The statement isn't even correct. The precedent had been changed a few times over the years, and the shifting precedent was part of the problem. It was never workable, which is why it had already been overturned as they tried to make an unworkable position work.
If all we need to know to judge your argument is a false claim about change, well then yeah, it does show how faulty your position is.
@morganalafee @SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
Oh just listening to a whole lot of people going on with such nonsense.
But all answer your question, no I'm not saying that.
If you are saying that women don't exist except as chattel, well that's quite the claim, hopefully you have more to back it up than most of the people that I see squawking about it.
It's funny that this is talking about looking for internal communication when I remember watching the health officials having their teleconferences broadcast right on YouTube where their own council of Independent experts told them that their processes were too rushed and without enough data to back up what they were telling the public.
So they stopped holding those meetings.
But this was all public. I assume those videos are still available on YouTube where they posted them.
@morganalafee @SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
If you would like...
@morganalafee @SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
Occam's razor would probably have us conclude that women are not chattel because that is a simpler proposal than some wacky convoluted rhetoric insisting that we have a system by which they are.
Come on, that's just a moronic thing to bring up.
It is a stupid claim wheeled out by politicians who are counting on the ignorance of the American people, counting on people to avoid educating themselves and actually reading directly from primary sources what is actually going on.
It is at best propaganda. At worst it's just really really lazy political rhetoric.
There's a long, long history saying otherwise.
Well to start with, simply legally, Congress is absolutely not bound to anything the president might put in his budget. Congress is absolutely free to completely ignore the president's budget proposal as they begin working on their appropriations. That is a stark reality.
But getting into the politics of it, there's a long history of presidents proposing budgets that their own parties generally ignore and often enough outright reject as the congressional membership look to garner favor with their own constituencies regardless of national benefit.
A representative seeks to get reelected by their voters regardless of what the president might think about some campaign promise the representative might be making.
We see this every cycle in modern times regardless of the division of party between the different branches and the different houses.
Both legally and practically the president might as well use his budget proposal as a campaign stunt, so every single one does.
@ArenaCops @SrRochardBunson @morganalafee @kaydenpat
Sounds like they are stretching pretty far to make an article.
Once you start trying to do that sort of psychoanalysis of a particular Justice based on his votes it opens the door to all sorts of kind of out there speculation about motivation. All sorts of things can be read into tea leaves.
I don't think it's particularly helpful.
Well, it's dead on arrival since Biden, like all recent presidents, uses their budget as a political statement instead of any serious effort to find a workable proposal.
That's just how the US system was designed to work, with the peoples' representatives deciding where the country wants to go, not the unilateral dictates of a president.
I don't know why anyone would think that's strange. In my experience I'm reminded daily that journalists aren't experts in the fields they're reporting on, and really don't themselves know what they're talking about.
Heck, these days it seems to have become fashionable in #journalism to produce articles and segments where a reporter flat out says they don't know why something or other, as if their own lack of understanding is the news.
This this evening I heard such chattering come out of APM's #Marketplace and I had my daily sigh at the state of reporting in the country.
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:
