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
I'd say the argument is not that they are using adjoining instead of adjacent but rather that since the two words overlap in meaning, you can get to the same effect whichever one you choose to use.
It's not instead of. It's simply both. Congress could have used either of the synonyms, to the same effect, and it's really a stretch to insist on such a broad expansion of executive power based on what seems to have been mere stylistic word choice.
But it sounds like at least we agree that Kagan's dissent really missed the mark, not allowing for even the possibility of vocabulary she was apparently not familiar with.
US Politics
Well, would you like to see another Trump presidency? Would that perhaps be pretty damaging to the country?
This prosecution plays into his hands giving him quite a lot of rhetoric to help him seek another term in office.
The US has a long-standing history of prosecutorial discretion where every prosecution is judged not only by whether the person did it, but also based on whether the prosecution itself would be positive or negative for the country.
The US will survive either way. The question is whether the US would be better or worse should the president choose to move forward with this prosecution.
Wow this article is spinning hard to try to defend Clinton.
Yes, there was evidence that she broke federal laws. And there was evidence that she deliberately tried to hide it. That evidence came directly from Obama's administration and from her own admission, as she openly discussed her destruction of evidence pertinent to the inquiry.
It's even worse that this article can't even manage to make solid statements on its own terms, instead teasing meaning out of language that is pretty wishy-washy about how things seem.
I really don't know why it's so hard for us to say that both Trump and Clinton misbehaved. It's not like the one takes away from the other.
And no, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, that doesn't say anything about equivalence at all. Both cases can be judged on their own, and both people held accountable for what they did regardless of the other.
Meh. An awful lot of GOP figures are more than happy to use this occasion to fundraise and confirm their rhetoric that they have been unfairly targeted all of these years.
I don't think it's much of a shock that Trump is getting indicted. Heck, that was kind of part of the conservative theory for a good while now. They're not so much losing their minds as they are nodding and saying, yep, saw this coming.
And of course quite a lot of people on the Republican side of things are happy for the off chance that this rids them of the guy.
But that's the problem, it doesn't sound like the normal rules would remove her from the case since she doesn't have those conflicts of interest that normally call for recusal.
So long as she is an active judge in that jurisdiction the normal rules say she should be on the case.
I've heard people make that framing over the years, and I really don't know where they come up with it.
The value of the scientific method is exactly that theories are maybe, leading to testing via hypothesis.
When I hear people saying theory is certain, they really get the whole point of #science backwards. If the theory was certain there would be nothing worth testing.
Just for completeness, the way I'd frame science is:
A model describes what you see
A theory guesses at how the model works
An experiment stresses the theory, trying to break it
A hypothesis is the stress point where the theory may break
You back yourself into a corner there, though, appealing to normalcy while saying nothing about this case is normal.
Well if nothing about this case is normal, then what does it matter if she's demonstrated behavior that isn't normal?
No, I don't believe it's right to give up that standard. We have existing rules of the road that we should apply even if we might not like the outcomes because the alternative is so much worse.
Giving up on the normal processes because we'd prefer something else in this particular prosecution threatens to win a battle but lose a war.
Well isn't that the normal standard?
If the judge has passed conduct that is unacceptable then she should be impeached. But barring impeachment, so long as she is on the job, the law professor's position you describe seems pretty reasonable.
Yeah that is some throwing the baby out with the bath water pattern of thought.
If Lemmy can be valuable to the Fediverse community then it doesn't matter one bit whether the developers are good people or bad people or smelly or have their in bad intentions.
This isn't like magic. The software will do what it is programmed to do regardless of the mindsets and motivations of the developers.
Well, what is his argument against?
I think that overlooks that #Trump has been actively *rewarded* for so much of the BS he does, which has conditioned him to do more of it. In particular, we reward him with attention.
He gained power based on popularity of his behavior, as frustrating as that is to watch.
The reason I think this is important is because if we highlight the role of society in pushing him to do this crap, we can work on cutting it off.
We need to stop feeding the troll. Accountability can play into his hands.
Sadly so.
Maybe it's not some right-wing conspiracy, and Netflix is simply pointing out that those movies are popular in the world?
Maybe one way to put it is that yes, a responsible developer will stand by his application, but in the open source world developers are free not to be so responsible :)
Really, it's like writing good comments in the code: arguably a developer SHOULD write good comments, but obviously devs, especially volunteer ones, often don't.
You can spill as many words as you want, but none of it changes the greed of demanding others resources while accusing them of being greedy.
volkris
boosted
what plant’s scientific name has the most Main Character energy? I put forward Acer Rubrum as a first bid
Nothing to do with whether it's okay or not. You might think it's okay for people to greedily complain about greed while demanding other people's resources.
Whether that's okay or not is in the eye of the beholder.
Seems pretty upside down to me, though.
Just because a precedent is overturned doesn't mean such a course correction is lawless.
Some precedents are themselves lawless, so it's out of respect for the law that they get overturned.
One quick note, if you aren't familiar with it, the ActivityPub specification goes out of its way to say that entities don't have to be human users.
AP explicitly allows for non-user actors.
I agree that I am completely ignoring that :)
It has nothing to do with people demanding Reddit's resources, demanding other people's stuff, greedily.
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:
