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
Believe it or not, there might be a difference or two between Hillary and Trump and their situations...
And some customized installations of #Mastodon have #quotedboost / #QT already, so it's definitely doable.
*shrug* it's their job to prioritize federal resources and identify places where the spending isn't turning out to be effective.
They're still talking about spending A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, just not quite as much as others want to negotiate for.
Hmmm. I'm suspicious of this article, as at least the part I could read was vague on details like direct quotes from spokespeople or details on the accounting.
Missing details like that are a warning sign that the reporter might simply be misunderstanding or otherwise not accurately capturing the situation.
Again, it's just one example of how the article misleads, but it misses that presidents don't have the authority to do that.
He wants to purge the government? That's nice. And it's exactly why the system was designed without that possibility.
So no, it's not credible.
AND it plays into Trump's hands to act like it would be something he could do. We should be countering the guy by pointing out to his supporters that he's making empty promises and lying to them.
Don't discount the possibility that maybe the solution that seems so obvious to you has been considered by experts and upon deeper study found to have serious issues and maybe wouldn't work after all.
I always remember once hearing a podcast with a recurring segment called, "Why don't they just...?" where they took obvious solutions like these and asked experts why they didn't implement them. So often there were **really good reasons** not to implement the ideas.
These issues are more complicated than I think you're giving them credit for, especially once humans are involved.
By sticky do you mean popular, or something different?
This article was pretty sensational, fearmongering for clicks. It was a good example of why so many have lost respect for outfits like the NY Times.
Your mention of independent federal agencies is one great example: the article plays fast and loose with the legalities around independent agencies, overlooking the legal barriers that distinguish them from other agencies, ones that would prevent exactly the thing the article is trying to hype up.
It's just foolish for this reporter to act as if a president can revoke checks on presidential power, as if those are voluntary.
They're not.
Not really, since it's relating to internal processes.
It's what's called bureaucracy.
It's only authoritarian to the extent that it attempts to impose on people outside of the government.
Link to your source?
I mean, that's why the work to combat climate change might not actually be so important.
The reason I don't agree with that take is because, assuming Bluesky is designed and intended to be distributed down to the user level, there's hardly a point to throwing resources at a futile effort of moderation that's just going to be thrown out the window the moment they launch the distributed feature.
Another way to look at it is that the lack of moderation today might be an indication that they really are committed to being so distributed.
There's just not much point to wasting resources that way if their intention is to open the flood gates to really user-focused platform soon.
Well I think it depends on one's definition of better.
Difficult moderation is an unavoidable issue of being a more distributed platform, or being more user focused, so it comes down to whether one believes it more important to be distributed or tied to administrators, who can do that moderation.
It comes down to where each of us might prefer that balance.
This, too, is not to be taken seriously.
It's a sensationalized claim that is completely unrealistic, completely detached from how the US government is actually structured.
Because the Supreme Court did not call for a second majority black district.
It laid out requirements for complying with the Voting Rights Act, and there was no such quota involved.
Heck, It's even factually false that Republicans rejected a call for a second majority black district.
They merely followed the Court to make a district competitive and let the voters decide.
What do you mean?
What have they done lately to rub you wrong?
@franktaber@mas.to
The ActivityPub engineering design is JUST that resource intensive as it operates.
It's unfortunate, but design choices were made.
Well, we keep electing the congresspeople who maintain this as the law.
And then we reelect them when they fail to fix it.
We really need to emphasize this: if we want better government we need to stop reelecting the exact same congresspeople who fail to fix it.
Otherwise, well, yep, these are the laws that were passed by representatives that we empowered.
And that's especially sad because a frustrating proportion of educated and even intelligent people are willing to accept the paradox of doing nothing being doing something
and then harangue someone for something they literally didn't do.
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:
