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
Not necessarily. It depends on how the software is distributed and such.
So what this comes down to is a simple disagreement about the type of people you want on this platform.
You want this platform to be one way, other people want it to be a different way, and that's just an honest disagreement.
They don't hide behind mystery. They put the opinions out on their website and hand copies to the press as soon as they are handed down.
They're not hiding what they look like. What they look like just doesn't matter, so why accept the downsides of cameras, turning the argument into a performance, turning it into the circus that is a congressional hearing, when it just doesn't matter one bit what it looks like?
They aren't legislators; they operate completely different in the US system of government.
It just makes no sense to call for cameras in the Supreme Court. That urge seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the Court--and the federal government in general--functions.
No I'm not taking the word of a tweet for it, but I would expect some independent analysis to look at how they E2E feature seems to operate, just like I would for any other company or developer.
Meh, It seems to make plenty of sense: so many people use that site because they get value out of it
Well the whole point of end-to-end encryption is that we don't have to answer that question.
Well more importantly, and this doesn't get nearly enough coverage, #Title42 is a section of law with specific requirements for how it can and cannot be applied.
It's not merely up to the discretion of an administration. The president doesn't get to just use it whenever he feels like it, and presidents don't get to go back and forth on the law as they come in to office.
Title 42 is no longer legally available to the president, so it's really been something to hear Republicans demanding that it be kept around, when that goes against the law itself.
Why? It's the opinion that matters, not the hairstyle worn during the hearing.
The logic laid out to all of us in the opinion they release is the only thing that matters in the work of the Supreme Court. That's what lower courts would be bound to as they apply the logic to the other cases before them.
It doesn't matter one bit what the justices look like as they are hearing the presentations from council.
@madelainetaylor@mastodon.scot
Yep, and I just keep hearing from journalists their expressions of a perspective that is just really disconnected: they know that they have lost so much respect, but they have absolutely no idea why, and so they can't address the concerns that the general public has.
Frankly I think that has something to do with the type of person that would become a journalist in the first place, a certain homogeneity among the people in the profession.
But that's a much larger topic :-)
Yeah, it does come across to me as a case where it got lost in a technicality.
The legislature may have threaded a needle to just barely put it outside the boundaries of court action.
Well, that's democracy.
I think so, and just to clarify in case I'm unclear here, it's not just that it's not prioritized, but in my experience I've heard from professionals actively arguing against the idea.
Sophistry? The US government is in a really bad place right now, and unless we are clear about what happened, we are not going to be holding to account the politicians who are responsible for putting us in this place.
This is important stuff!
We keep reelecting politicians who keep screwing up, and unless we correct the record and stop letting them point fingers elsewhere, we're just going to get more of the same, more of this over and over.
The politicians that promised spending without actually funding their programs have really put us in a bind now, but we reelected most of them because we never call them out for what they have done.
Let's change that, and get better government officials in place.
No a limit does not question the validity of the debt. Exactly the opposite! The limit makes very clear what is valid debt, exactly so that people don't have to question it.
Nobody is talking about stopping borrowing here. The entire question is about whether there can be more borrowing, even as existing borrowing continues.
The president wants more power to borrow, and as per the Constitution, he can't have that power without permission of Congress. That's all we're talking about here, the expansion of the president's power.
Our representatives are skeptical of expanding the president's power, so they are negotiating that expansion, exactly as the Constitution calls for as part of the checks and balances design of the federal government.
They're not stopping him from borrowing, though. The Treasury will continue to borrow as it has been authorized previously. This is a question of new borrowing power.
There is no panacea. But at least it would be nice to at least be able to say, senator I am pretty sure this video is real and not a deep fake seeing as it has a signature that matches your personal key.
Was his key hacked? Did he give it to a staffer that abused it to embarrass him? Did a quantum computer simply bypass it? Maybe. But at least it's something other than simply hearing him deny that it really is him in a deep faked video.
A Band-Aid on the festering wound that is humanity is still an improvement :-) Well, that's probably darker than I really would put it myself.
Constitutionally (and financially) they are two different processes, though, authorizing spending versus authorizing borrowing.
The last Congress approved a bunch of spending, but they didn't provide funding for it. We really need to call out those politicians for doing that and putting us in this situation.
Yes, now the president is constitutionally required to pay debts, and I really wish he would stop threatening to default as that would be an impeachable offense in my opinion. The 14th Amendment is clear that he does not have that option.
They sure have made a mess of things.
Of course the debt limit is in the Constitution. It's right there in Article 1, which assigns to Congress the authority to borrow against the credit of the United States.
And that's a pretty important issue! If we are going to be obligating generations of Americans to paying back debts we want to make sure the democratic process confirms that we really want to do that.
The debt limit is merely the term we use to describe the amount that, as per Constitution, our representatives have authorized to be borrowed.
I absolutely can blame Biden and the last Congress for not authorizing borrowing to provide money for the spending the authorized. They 100% had that ability, and they 100% didn't provide that funding, leading us to this situation.
They promised to spend more money than there was, and they chose to do that freely, as they had the full authority to authorize borrowing along with their appropriations bill. Congress has that power. They didn't bother using it.
I can blame that fact on Biden and the last Congress because that's exactly what they did, willfully.
We are here in this position because of the legislation that the last Congress chose to pass and that Biden chose to sign, even though this disconnect between spending and funding was obvious. It was right there in the math for all to see.
Sounds like the case was pretty weak, quoting from the lower court:
"What’s more, neither of the two plaintiffs who has had an abortion contends that a third party’s cremation or burial of fetal remains would cause her to violate any religious principle indirectly. What these two plaintiffs contend is that cremation or burial implies a view—the personhood of an unborn fetus—that they do not hold. They maintain that only human beings are cremated or buried. This is questionable. Dogs, cats, and other pets may be cremated or buried, sometimes as a result of legal requirements not to put animals’ bodies in the garbage."
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:
