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, as you might be getting that exactly backwards.
It would breach the church state line to deny funding on account of religion.
If the state has no business sticking its nose into religion, that means it doesn't really have a role in declaring religion to be anathema.
Seriously, that was my takeaway from the recording that came out.
It didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know, except that wait, #Trump actually seems to have read those briefs and had a working knowledge of the papers handed to him?
I was honestly a bit surprised.
I mean, the group's idea is that labels harm the democratic process, so it's kind of silly to complain that it's not open to being labeled.
@CynAq@evil.social
But, as we can see, questioning of trustworthiness has nothing to do with fact. Anyone can level accusations and call trustworthiness into question. ProPublica is a master at that, profiting off of muckracking.
The Court can't control what the press is saying about them. That's really up to us.
All the Court can do is focus on the jurisprudence in their jurisdiction, and hope the public sees through sensationalist press outfits.
The Court hands down decisions. What we think of them is clearly beyond their control.
#Alito: a reasonable person wouldn't buy into the misleading ad hominem attacks ProPublica thrives on
Ah, but Sam, ProPublica doesn't sell to reasonable people, as the braying of #Fediverse demonstrates so well.
It's a tech company. Successful business models are optional :)
But seriously, well we'll see. The company can do all sorts of things ranging from putting firewalls between markets through processing the data in ways that are compliant with the data protection mandates, even if that makes the global enterprise less successful.
One thing I notice in your comment is that you focus on the "gifts from a billionaire" which doesn't really have relevance instead of the size of the gift, which might.
It really illustrates how manufactured and misleading these stories are, how much they focus on ad hominem issues while leaving more relevant facts aside.
Let's look at his actual discharge of his duties, his actual reasoning presented in SCOTUS opinions, not this yellow journalism.
Well, I'd question firstly whether Discord is all that useful in the first place. Maybe you don't need it or an alternative to it at all?
And yes, I say this as someone who just never figured out why people like it, so I wonder how much of it is people feeling pressured to join just because that's where the group is.
You call it an end run, but that sounds like the point, right? The EU policies are about not transferring data out, so they're not transferring data out?
It doesn't sound like circumvention but rather like complying with the spirit and intention of the regulation.
@JohnMFlores @daringfireball
After watching the mess ProPublica stirred up around Thomas, it seems like a reasonable step to take.
Why let PP's allegations go unanswered for perhaps days? Might as well call them out ahead of time.
Firstly, those federal laws apply to lower courts, and cannot legally apply to the Supreme Court without violating constitutional independence of the Court.
Secondly, financial disclosure rules don't apply to every single transaction, and these social trips were not even covered by the rules.
ProPublica's suggestions otherwise are horribly misleading of the public.
It does. However, so many people are not taken in by the yellow journalism of ProPublica that impeachment remains a longshot.
Alito seems to have been doing his job. We can read his opinions for ourselves to see that all of these personal attacks are distractions from the actual job.
We really shouldn't empower sensationalized press outfits to decide our government officials for us.
The problem is, mainstream outfits from NBC through AP have pointed out that this account doesn't even agree with the charges ProPublica was putting out, not to get into whether ProPublica itself has the story correct.
These outfits really need to get their stories straight.
As usual from ProPublica, this is just muckracking. The outfit would do much more good for the public by covering the reasoning in decisions rather than sensationalized personal attacks on members of the court.
Alito pointed out that ProPublica was about to publish yet another misleading article, and it seemed pretty reasonable to want to get ahead of the story.
Just one sample, if Alito came to the same conclusion as almost the entire rest of the court, maybe, just maybe, there was nothing untoward going on here?
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
It's the same *reason* that the ProPublica attacks are so offbase. They were misinformed about Thomas, and they are misinformed about Alito.
But so long as people keep clicking on their nonsense, they'll keep on publishing it.
They weren't gifts. That was debunked pretty quickly. Not that such debunking really pierces the narrative that people believe when they trust that outfit.
Just because ProPublica was wrong twice doesn't somehow make it right.
I really don't think you understand their arguments if you think this issue would tie them into knots.
Here, I'll link to Bruen if you'd like you read more.
In particular, the operational part isn't the one you quoted, but rather the right itself. What is the right, exactly, that shall not be infringed? We get the don't infringe this, but... don't infringe what?
Thomas writes that a government wanting to regulate must show that what it's infringing upon isn't part of this right, by showing it not to have been part of the right alluded to.
And so, just as Thomas recognizes that the right did not extend to all locations, he'd probably recognize that the right didn't extend to people under the influence of drugs.
Nope. I have no idea what statistical methods Netflix might be applying internally, but I'm definitely pretty skeptical of the right-wing conspiracy.
Yes, I know many people feel that way.
I'd rather have a more functional protocol that better provides features so many are clamoring for, better serving those users, regardless of associations.
Those stories were based on [possibly intentional] misunderstandings of how #Bitcoin works.
It absolutely doesn't take a significant amount of energy to transmit a Bitcoin transaction. The one way hashes involved in signing the message are trivial, which is the whole point of a one way hash.
So those stories would be like computing the energy cost of writing a letter by including the energy used to transport the letter by air across the country for some reason.
But heck, those narratives got clicks, so ::shrug::
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:
