volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr

That's not what the bill does, and you can read it for yourself at the following link.

The bill allows that if polling places screw up their operations badly enough that the outcome of the election would be so questioned, then the secretary of state can call for a new election.

This doesn't rig elections, and it definitely doesn't involve a party.

So polling places... don't screw up! Have enough ballots for voters! And then this idea will never be applied anyway.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/SB01993E.pdf#navpanes=0

@xankarn

I don't think his attendance of that political circus would have done anything good for anyone, except politicians trying to make soundbites and make headlines.

It's better that he keep focusing on his own work rather than jump into the mud with those pigs.

@gugurumbe

That's just describing the voluntary deletion upon request, though :)

The difference between an operator caching content vs storing, archiving, and even retransmitting it comes down to their own choice as to whether to delete or do anything else they want with the content.

And no, in an international, interconnected world, law enforcement isn't going to be that reliable of a solution to this trust problem.

If nothing else, how would we know if someone is ignoring deletion requests, to know to send government agents to their servers, even assuming we have that practical ability?

A user might not know a third party instance operator is saving all of their important private content, right up until the day the instance is hacked or the content is intentionally spread throughout the internet.

IF the operator is in a jurisdiction with the protection law, it'll be too late then, and heck, the operator might consider the release worth the price anyway.

@raccoon

@stevengoldfarb

Again, we need to emphasize that this is not about whether the drug is good. The court is asked whether the FDA followed the law back in 2000, and the research is only one requirement of the law.

If you scroll down to p. 39 of the TX decision you can see the judge calling the FDA out on using a method for authorization that it didn't seem legally allowed no matter how many studies were conducted or consulted.

But, research is indeed part of the law, and the judge claims the FDA was the one cherrypicking, citing evidence that contradicted the FDA's.

Also keep in mind that at this preliminary stage of a case the court is supposed to give benefit of the doubt to the challenger, even if the evidence is weighed differently in the end.

The ruling lays it all out, though.

@caseyjonesed

Or to put it a different way, you ask how **it** passes, overlooking that the government has many different budgets, made by different groups for different reasons.

Yes, Congress develops a budget for appropriations, but *that's not the budget that gets spent*.

The president also develops a budget as a request to Congress, but that doesn't get spent either.

The actual money that the Treasury spends is based on budgeting processes that are entirely inside the Executive Branch as departments spend throughout the year.

@gwfoto@newsie.social

@raccoon

But we can't discount the possibility that this is a win-win.

Just because the developers are getting those business opportunities, and are self-interested in those goals, doesn't mean the system won't also be good for users, even if by accident.

If my benefit is a side effect of their benefit, great! Heck, if anything that means they'll work even harder and accidentally benefit me even more!

@caseyjonesed

The Congressional budgeting process isn't what gets actually spent, though. You can see that what the Treasury pays out is never what Congress has budgeted.

The money that is actually spent by the Treasury comes out of executive branch's ongoing budgeting, that is never passed by Congress.

Congress basically gives the executive branch permission to spend. But the practical budgeting, based on unpredictable fiscal realities, happens purely within the executive branch.

@gwfoto@newsie.social

@caseyjonesed

Ha, well most relevant here, you ask the executive agency in question to consult with its departments on their updated spending plans, based on revenue projections and spending priorities, and once the budget makes it up the administrative chain of command, you hand it over to the Treasury to play their role in executing it.

I was in a meeting with such a budget just this morning.

@gwfoto@newsie.social

@frozencanuck

Sounds like they already told Elon to go F himself, and that's why he's looking to accept their offer here.

If they wanted to leave the platform, well, Elon's helping them out the door.

@arstechnica @wikipedia

@vy

You bring up the Garland nomination, and I think the spin around that story is key to what you're describing here. So many of these narratives are rooted in factually wrong ideas about how government functions.

In the Garland case, R's didn't block nomination since that's not how the nominating process works. Under the US system, the president must seek approval NOT avoid disapproval.

That detail shifts the story completely, as it's no longer action of the Rs that mattered, but inaction of the D, of Obama.

It's not what Republicans *did* but what Democrats *didn't do* that lead to the outcome.

@smellsofbikes

@frozencanuck

I think people underestimate how much internal administrative work it can be in an established journalistic institution to do something like start participating in a new platform like Fediverse.

It isn't necessarily something to be done in a day, where a geeky employee figures out how to install the program and sets it up. The part these devs can help with might be only the tip of that iceberg.

Instead, there are probably layers of internal review, marketing input, workflow planning, and who knows what legal review.

Depending on the org, the server might be the easiest part of the whole thing.

@stevenray

Everything I've heard from Google as they've been talking about passkeys has given me the impression that they were saying exactly that.

It was pretty noteworthy to me.
@lauren

@marynelson8

One very important thing the article gets wrong, that has become central to the political rhetoric is this line:

"the Treasury in theory will no longer be able to pay interest to bondholders"

No, the Treasury will have the revenues to pay interest to bondholders. Those interest payments are only a small portion of what the Treasury will bring in throughout the year.

All of the talk of default is rooted in that error.

@reiver

Last I looked I got the impression that the documentation itself was a work in progress. It just sounded like there were a bunch of things implemented that hadn't been documented yet.

But that was probably a few months ago.

Did it sound that way to you reading through it now?

Anyway, given what I've read about their goals, I'd be surprised if they would leave a thing like this so centralized in the end.

@stevengoldfarb

Keep in mind that the followup studies can't be legally considered in the specific approval at the center of this.

The legal question the judge is to answer is whether the FDA followed procedures as challenged, and to that question it's not relevant whether there were followup studies later on, after the process.

As far as I can tell there's absolutely nothing stopping the administration from doing this right and issuing a new approval based on those followup studies, and that would resolve all of this.

@caseyjonesed

That story is simply, factually, wrong seeing as these debts are managed by the Treasury in the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch.

McCarthy doesn't have the authority to hold credit hostage if he wanted to. That's managed by a different branch of government that he's not part of.

@gwfoto@newsie.social

@evan you sound focused on the strategy and drama, but I was interested in seeing the response to @Ronkjeffries s question about advantages to the Bluesky protocol.

After all, if the Bluesky protocol is better, that's a pretty solid reason for it to be expanded regardless of fediverse.

Their impact then would be to demonstrate a better way to do this.

@tchambers