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
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Yep, so that's exactly why I caution people not to rush to judgment here and be aware of that there are contested facts at the heart of this case.
I often do think of it in terms of a murder trial: people keep rushing forward with murder accusations before we even check to see if there's actually a dead victim involved.
By analogy, so many of these accusations over the last decade or so have involved murder accusations where the supposed victim is right there joining the chorus, jumping up and down very much alive, and pointing fingers. The world is just that absurd these days :-)
Yes but since a common usage of "adjacent" is exactly "adjoining" that is a distinction without a clear difference.
And that is even if somehow Kagan has managed to go through life ignorant of this definition. I find that hard to believe, but okay.
At the very least that potential equivalence of adjacent and adjoining means that the Court's reading is reasonable. It just applied a common interpretation of the term.
The rest strikes me as jumping through some pretty high hoops to expand executive branch power enormously without clear congressional approval.
Congress is of course free to clarify that it does want the president to have this huge amount of power, but at this point it's plenty reasonable to conclude that this power was not granted.
Yes I am leaving that out because it's not relevant.
If I am demanding your stuff then it doesn't really matter what terms you would prefer to provide your resources, I'm still demanding your stuff, greedily.
A whole lot of people are showing a real lack of introspection, and I think your comment is illustrating that.
Sure that all makes sense.
My point is specifically about this argument, that comes up in far more places than just Reddit, that involves calling someone greedy while demanding their resources.
It's a much sounder argument to simply stick with the company not providing good service or listening to its users.
But consider: those search engines themselves tend to be centralized :)
There are real questions about scalability on the storage and processing side for full text search of a distributed system.
This is not a simple or easy problem to solve.
Governments have an awful lot of private data that isn't classified, though.
Personally, I believe the better approach focuses on giving users power to shape their experiences, even recognizing the diversity of experience that different users want, rather than focusing on cultural standards.
These are technological challenges that should be approached with technical, not social, solutions.
Accusations of greed are funny things.
The #Reddit drama follows an all too common pattern where people are accusing others of greed because they want something the other has.
Yeah, Reddit is so greedy for charging for providing its service, but *I demand their resources.*
It's not exactly taking a high road to describe someone as greedy while claiming those resources for oneself.
I think it's key that ActivityPub is focused on instances being the first class actors instead of having that focus be on users.
A focus on user-focused PKI would be a fundamental chance to the core organization of ActivityPub, not something that could be elegantly bolted on.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Those facts are contested, though.
Trump supporters make a big deal about how he did return documents, was happily working with the archives about returning more, and wasn't given time to address their additional demands.
It's another case where there are two completely separate sets of facts that different groups are working with.
I suspect reality is somewhere in the middle, but hopefully through the trial we might sort some of the conflict out.
Which is to say... the algorithm :)
How kbin presents comments is its algorithm for presenting comments.
Who's promoting an equivalence? Certainly not me, and if you're read any sort of equivalence into my posts then you have misinformed yourself.
These issues stand on their own, regardless of each other.
That each exists in the same reality doesn't mean they are or aren't equivalent. That's a strawman of your own creation.
@shsbxheb@fosstodon.org
I know that's the position that Kagan took, but I found it bizarre and factually lacking since she simply insisted that a common use of a word doesn't exist.
In my everyday experience adjacent has meant adjoining, and heck, adjoining is one of the first definitions that come up if you search for a definition for the word.
Kagan's opinion not only insists on an alternative definition being the right one, but it goes so far as to say this usage doesn't exist, despite the common experience saying otherwise.
So no, that argument doesn't really hold water.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Well I do think they targeted him, again whether you think that targeting is good or bad is a separate question.
And part of the issue here is that by targeting him it plays into his rhetoric, jives with his constituency, that he was being targeted by some dark forces.
It's a tricky issue whether to go down this road or not.
On one side we have these kind of vague laws and prosecutorial discretion, and on the other side we have confirming Trump's whole argument that the government is out to get him.
Legally it is questionable and politically it is extra questionable because we are basically confirming the position of a guy who lives on drama.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Well that's pretty much my point.
A lot of people don't see this police action as being punished, but it absolutely is, and that is something that folks need to come to terms with as they look at the world.
This is police action punishing somebody. Maybe it's for the best, maybe it's entirely deserved, but it is police action punishing somebody, and even if it's for the best, that is part of the story to come to grips with.
If you don't see this punishment as punishment, well, that's the issue. It is punishment being handed down from authorities and that needs to be reckoned with as we look at the situation.
... I'm liberal
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
I don't think it really matters that much.
Personally I don't get behind this perspective that is demanding pounds of flesh, demanding that Trump be punished. I just don't really care about the guy.
And the case is not as solid as a lot of people think it is.
But even if it is a solid case and the judge acts inappropriately, well then there are appeals to address the judge messing things up. It'll be taken care of.
I just don't think we should be so obsessed with this in the first place.
Yeah, and I just think that we need to establish cultural norms to push back on that mindset.
So I just want to emphasize that that approach disempowers users, and if instances want to go down that path, fine, but I just want to make sure they are realizing that they are disempowering users in the process.
If instance owners and users are happy with that trade-off, okay. That's their choice. I just want to highlight that it is the choice they are making, making sure they are informed as they make it.
The problem is that it involves a rush to judgment, assuming that prosecutors are correct, siding with the police effectively, instead of considering that maybe, just maybe, cops aren't always on the right side as they make their accusations.
Wow, hastility to organize labor? Way to misread the rulings.
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:
