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
It only applies to counties where a significant number of people have had their abilities to cast their votes undermined by polling places not having ballots for people to use.
Whether a person agrees with this resolution or not, that is the core of the law, the resolution to that situation where people were unable to vote.
It is not true that "The court is only allowed to block the drug if evidence is shown of it being unsafe" and it's so important to be clear about that.
AGAIN, the court here is not looking at safety but rather whether the FDA followed the law which, for better or worse, is independent of issues of safety.
The court is looking at whether the FDA followed the law, and a core issue is that the FDA used that accelerated approval when it might not have been legal to use accelerated approval.
All of the talk of lives saved has nothing to do with whether the FDA broke the law in using accelerated approval in this case.
That's what the law provides for, though.
If you're saying they'll ignore the law, then fine, but then it's not the law that's at issue here.
No, the bill doesn't give official power to overturn elections.
It merely provides a way to resolution to cases where a polling place screws up and threatens voters' abilities to cast their ballots: try again, and be more professional this time.
It's really not as sensational as these articles are trying to sound.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/SB01993E.pdf#navpanes=0
The bill only allows the option of calling for a redo if enough polling places screw up their operations, threatening peoples' abilities to cast ballots.
It seems pretty reasonable to expect polling places to function well, so that this never becomes a consideration in the first place, and I'm not sure what a better response might be if there is such a problem
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/SB01993E.pdf#navpanes=0
@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
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.
Deletion in ActivityPub vs revocation
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.
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.
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
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!
I think this issue is trickier than you're giving credit for.
One challenge with any distributed social network is some loss of control over how the content you generate moves around. It's one of the tradeoffs when giving up one centralized entity that can [hopefully] be held accountable for content stewardship.
And so we get into the situation where #ActivityPub deletion and editing is based on the assumption that other instances will voluntarily agree to deletion requests.
There may be creative ways to look for balance, where revocation is good enough assurance of deletion, but unfortunately this kind of thing is a real tradeoff for operating distributed systems.
(I think this kind of thing is interesting to study, so excuse the ramble :) )
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
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
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.
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.
@digital_wyrm@mastodon.online
One thing I like to emphasize to people, because so many are unaware, is that by design the #Fediverse platform is extremely lacking in privacy features.
Basically, a user needs to know that anything they put on this platform is broadcast to the public, *no matter how post privacy is set.*
This behavior is at the core of the system and can't be easily changed.
And yes, I appreciate being a stranger replying to you here :) but I really like to try to make this issue known because it's pretty important to users of this platform!
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.
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
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.
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:
