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
The problem is that it doesn't matter what the president wants to be true, he does not have authorities that he does not have.
Should Biden try to sell debt that was not authorized by law, then whoever buys that debt will be buying Monopoly money, and the US would have zero obligation to actually pay it back, so it would be really stupid for anybody to actually buy it.
I mean I would also think it to be impeachable for a president to engage in such a scam, but that is a secondary concern.
Yeah my complaint/criticism is just that the user interface talks about privacy toward this audience or that audience while the user will be unaware of that any audience can potentially see the content.
And if I didn't say so above, the issue is that I have also talked to a lot of individuals who are very surprised to find out that they were misled about how the privacy works here. So this is not just theoretical, this is actually what is happening.
I just really wish the platform could be more transparent about how it works.
I think that is on the right path although there are some technologies that can balance security against convenience.
The thing that always comes to my mind is that we have all of these solutions that academic computer science figure it out decades ago, I keep thinking of the '70s, that just didn't make it into prevalent usage in all of this time, that just didn't get implemented in user facing applications.
We know how to secure things. We just don't. And that is frustrating to me but it is what it is.
I don't think that answers my question as to what advantage there is to single user instances.
I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything, I am honestly asking what you have in mind.
@jonradioV4@mastodon.world
I mean SCOTUS might be the final umpire, but we can all see with our own eyes that the president does not have that authority. The Constitution is clear.
I don't think they care.
Account portability was such an obvious feature that surely they considered but rejected it as not particularly important to what they intended to build.
ActivityPub is all about instances, not users. It's all centered, and centralized, around instances.
Account portability just doesn't matter to that instance-first organization.
Through #ActivityPub, #Mastodon privacy settings rely on voluntary cooperation. You *request* that instances only share your content with the audience you specify, but there is no real way to enforce that.
This comes as a surprise to many users.
Me, I think I'd change the UI to call it "suggested broadcast"' rather than anything related to privacy so that users are more aware of where their content might end up.
I think you underestimate just how incompetent US government officials are.
It reminds me of the sequester deal Obama made, that he didn't expect to ever take effect... until it did.
We keep electing morons, so even if Congress cares about the rich and the companies, they're generally too bad at their jobs to do them well even in corrupt ways.
@jonradioV4@mastodon.world
The Constitution assigns to Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States" since any borrowing that could impact generations of Americans probably shouldn't be done without democratic approval.
The debt ceiling is merely the term we use for the amount Congress has authorized, so it's built into the constitutional design of the federal government. It's been there since the beginning.
The president cannot legally borrow money without authorization. Any borrowing he might attempt would be without legal backing.
Republicans already voted to raise the debt ceiling, so if Biden did pass what they've handed over, they wouldn't be able to default.
@SuperTapani@newsie.social
They already voted to raise it...
There's a lot of misinformation going around about the bills.
The debt ceiling disagreement is NOT about paying bills. The Treasury has plenty of revenue coming in every day to pay the bills, as you can see in its report below.
The disagreement is about buying *new things* borrowing more to enable new spending, creating new bills.
Plus, paying bills is an executive branch function, up to the president, not Congress.
Politicians are lying to us, counting on us not knowing how the federal government works so they can engage in political grandstanding.
That's just not consistent with the record over the past couple of years.
The deficit exploded during the pandemic as there were massive increases in spending, even as the Treasury reported increased tax collections after the Republican tax reforms.
It's not necessary to understand the nitty-gritty. It's a matter of raising user awareness, preferably through UIs that do an effective job of informing users of what's going on.
Just for example, on my client here there's a button called "Adjust toot privacy" and *at the least* I'd rephrase that to toot audience, toot reach, or toot broadcast.
Maybe even "adjust suggested broadcast" to avoid giving the impression that privacy is particularly guaranteed.
Well, you quoted the text above and it doesn't call for action by the Senate.
"shall nominate" and "shall appoint" are the only calls for action, and the president is the subject for each of them.
No, my interpretation is based on the text first and foremost, with the location emphasizing its role in the structure of the government and separation of powers providing yet another confirmation that my interpretation is the correct one.
Not only does the text NOT call for action from the Senate, but it would be inconsistent with the rest of the design of the federal government if it did.
What advantages do you expect the single user setup to have?
*I* have lent dollars to the US government. And the Treasury reports that it has accepted loans from a tremendous number of people and organizations around the world.
It's really tinfoil hat territory to deny that based on what we see with our own eyes.
Funny. That's not what the screenshot says, where it invites AP to back up its claims first.
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:
