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
@TomShafShafer sure, and it's social media, so of course you can post whatever you want to on it, talk about whatever you want to, but just while you're doing it, be aware of that you are feeding #Trump, supporting his campaign by giving him attention, keeping him on the minds of his supporters, and encouraging them to vote for him because that is how trolls work.
I know, it's just a drop of water in the ocean, but it is doing your own small part to promote his presidential campaign.
And I know, it's probably venting, but just be aware of that the venting does help to promote him for another term of presidency.
Just keep in mind that a troll like Trump thrives on attention, WANTS attention, so talking about him is giving Trump exactly what he wants.
His campaign would be a non-starter if he didn't have so many people yelling about him, because he can't run on his actual record.
Who ignored him? He was on the front pages of every paper for years!
Everybody talked about him constantly, far more than was warranted, speculating and pointing fingers and generally just giving him exactly the attention that he wanted.
I don't know how you can say ignoring him is how we got saddled with his presidency when he was so clearly the opposite of ignored this whole time.
But you might be missing the value proposition for that theoretical buyer.
They wouldn't buy the instance without some value that makes the purchase worthwhile to them, and the ability for users to move to other instances should they provide a poor experience after the purchase is yet more reason that they wouldn't make the purchase for bad reasons.
On the other hand, if a VC buys a major instance and provides a better experience for users, well more power to them!
A purchase is not necessarily a bad thing.
A purchase can also provide resources and leadership that can work for users too.
That's fair, and yeah I thought it was kind of a close call, and I did have to think a little long to come up with that scifi angle :)
Hmmmmm I'd say the focus on revolutionary technologies like the Death Star, that change the equation so fundamentally between number of people needed to attack it versus number of people to be saved by destroying it do push Star Wars over the boundary and into science fiction.
It might not be hard science fiction, but it does explore issues of the future where such force multipliers are enabled by new technology.
But what is your definition to the extent that this fails to meet it?
volkris
boosted
Satellite operators poised for $9 billion payday after clearing C-band spectrum
Intelsat, SES are on track to get nearly $9 billion in FCC incentive payments.
I think you're projecting far too much into your experience at that point, though.
And I think it's key that what you don't hear is often based on your own choices for your own sources of information, so not only does it reflect reading something into what's not there, but also more fundamentally, choices that create that experiential void in the first place.
So it's kind of doubly reflecting your own situation rather than the world outside.
You haven't heard Republicans criticize Trump over Jan 6th?
I think that you aren't listening to a good cross section of Republicans, then, because I've been hearing pretty mainstream Republican voices criticizing the guy for a year over the way he handled it.
Heck, I remember conservatives criticizing him on that day, as it was unfolding, saying he was screwing up by not addressing the situation more quickly.
He would shut up if people would stop paying attention to him.
Paying attention to him is, as we used to say on the internet, feeding the trolls.
But the transcript showed that Joe Biden allowed himself to be used by his son to profit off of the promise of access to his office.
The transcript revisits this repeatedly, nailing it home.
So no, according to the transcript the calls to Dad we're not just about family and fishing.
It's not so simple as they would lose their readership and reach and the functionality of the Twitter website.
But this is the huge difference between restricting versus declining to promote.
Just because starlink isn't supporting some operation doesn't mean it is restricting that operation, it's just not participating in it.
It's a critical factual difference.
But it's not a patch. It's an entire separate layer with separate value and separate use cases.
It's like, TCP is not a patch on IP. The two work together, and they both do different things, just as lightning works with Bitcoin and does different things.
Feel free to block! That is, after all, how this platform works. If you are not interested in hearing voices outside of your echo chamber you are entirely empowered to block those voices. It's 100% up to you.
But when I go and look at the underlying direct evidence, it doesn't match what is being claimed here. And that is why this is not particularly compelling to me.
When the issue is what I can see with my own eyes versus what other people are grousing about, well I have to go with what I can see with my own eyes, and I would encourage everyone else to review with their own eyes as well.
But that's election of electors, not election of the president, entirely different thing.
By law election of the president happens later on, and that is what this indictment both recognizes and misses, and the contradiction within the indictment is so key to why it is a sham.
But we see how from the way things played out that that absolutely didn't happen, so if it was the plan ever, it was never the plan in any substantial way.
So no.
No, it's the same old.
A weak indictment that half the country will respect and the other half won't and that a jury might or might not agree with base largely on political factors.
It's a damn shame we are at this point in the country.
I think you're right. It will be interesting to see what primaries start to say when people start actually punching their ballots.
I'm pretty annoyed that I expect a bunch of people to vote for Trump not because of Trump himself but as a vote against these charges being brought against him.
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:
