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
Careful about equating Republicans with radicalized far right extremists.
Such people likely reject the Republican party as corrupt or otherwise not sufficiently far right.
There are MUCH more toxic places online than Facebook.
Well, it's the latest expression of the long-fashionable drive to target Thomas.
Like any fashion, it's hard to say exactly what brings it about, as different people sign on and follow the bandwagon for different reasons.
But yeah, they're targeting him because, for example, media outfits knew they'd have a built in audience, and built in clicks, for creating these stories.
Well what is the major cost? Storage? Bandwidth? Processing?
Maybe there are ways for users to make in-kind donations too.
I think you misidentify the problem, or at least miss one huge problem.
Sure, empty timeline may be one problem, but an even more fundamental problem is that of the complication of having to choose an instance in the first place. It seems to me that's the real problem this addresses in the onboarding process.
If users don't even sign up because of choice paralysis of having to pick an instance, then it doesn't even matter whether timelines are empty. The user won't get that far.
I'm not sure what better option there could be for addressing that than getting the user in and then encouraging them to switch to an instance they might enjoy better.
For example, sending them to a random instance doesn't seem like a good way forward either.
Per account sounds like a good idea since IMO one of the best use cases for having multiple accounts in the first place is to wear different hats, like work vs personal personas.
Well then why would any policy change at the Federal Reserve tell us that there's something wrong in macroeconomics, for one example?
You might also want to check out how #IPFS is trying to solve a similar issue of providing a static address for dynamic content in a decentralized way.
As I recall, a major solution is called IPNS.
In short, IPFS is decentralized, and all content in IPFS is immutable and addressed using a hash. But how do you update to a new hash when there's a new version of content, without doing it in a centralized way?
They're using DNS, controlled by the user, to provide the pointer to the latest version, similar to what you describe here.
volkris
boosted
You're confusing a lot of concepts here, the study of macro against bureaucratic reports and management decisions, and the interface between employment and inflation.
All of those concepts are loosely coupled at best.
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 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:
