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
This sort of framing is really unhelpful, though, even as it's sadly common these days in #USPolitics.
The US system doesn't work without consensus, and it's adamantly not about individuals like McCarthy or McConnell.
The representatives in the House and Senate that Americans elected represent strong disagreements. We should be talking about how our elected representatives have to find common ground to move forward, not about the Senate jamming the Speaker of the House.
That dramatic line misses what actually goes on even as we're relying on the gears of Congress to turn.
These folks all represent disagreement. They all need to find agreement.
From the article it sounds like this is libraries leaving an organization that doesn't meet their needs, not conservative lawmakers doing things.
If the ALA is putting its stances ahead of the members it's supposed to be serving, well, it's pretty reasonable to expect membership to decline.
But then, other academics, including ones I know, appreciate being able to teach and do their work without DEI distractions hanging over their heads.
It's a sword that cuts both ways.
The report misses that Alabama DID revise their congressional map as ordered, and they did so in keeping with what the Supreme Court actually said about the law, including the VRA.
The lower court didn't like even the revised map, which is fine, but it doesn't mean the state defied the law.
So now there'll be an appeal to see if the lower court has legs to stand on or if it's exceeding its authority, misreading the law.
It's funny: half the news stories claim Alabama was thumbing a nose at the Supreme Court, and the other half say it was helping the Court rule the other way.
Which is it? Is the state pro or anti SCOTUS?
In reality, both of those narratives miss the legalities of what's really going on, trying to wrap it all up in hyped up drama, unfortunately.
@jhavok@mastodon.social
Oh.
It by definition works exactly that way.
The borrowing has nothing to do with it except that it's part of the price Musk paid because of the value he placed on the transaction.
Ha, like I said, I asked what YOU meant by it. A TON of people use the term to mean something different, and that's OK so long as we can figure out what different people mean by the word.
But still, in your reply I see a lot of what the word, to you, ISN'T but I still don't see what to you it IS.
To you it isn't just Mastodon or AP, but what IS it?
If you're talking about sharing research on Fediverse keep in mind that some Mastodon instances offer features like math formatting using tex formatting.
Some instances offer it, most don't. That's the kind of thing to check up on.
Again, it's not overvalued if that's the value he placed on it.
Which he did.
Because that's what he decided he would pay for it.
It doesn't matter WHY Musk valued Twitter that highly. But that he bought it for that much means that he DID value it that high.
I just don't see any evidence that this was about compromising in the committee to reach consensus.
Everything I see is consistent with, and more simply explained by, a committee that didn't have a technical depth of knowledge and experience to see the problems that would arise from repurposing off-the-shelf components from web tech.
@rticks@mastodon.social
I mean, there was a bit more to it than that...
@exception exactly.
We might get a TON of engagement within our echo chambers. The amount of head-nodding might give a perception that we're doing a lot of good.
But just engaging with people whose minds are already on the same page does nothing to progress anything.
One of the revelations of the #TwitterFiles was confirmation that #Twitter had really terrible internal security practices, management practices, and privacy protections.
So it's not that Jack did this. Jack didn't know what was going on in his own company, which is certainly an issue, but a different one.
It sounds like these employees acted without permission or knowledge of their company, which again is an issue, but we need to be clear about what exactly happened.
Legally, the company may or may not be able to escape liability because of this, after all.
Are things different inside of Twitter/X now? No idea, but we should be asking if they have fixed those problems of the past.
It's ridiculous that employees were able to do this, but that's how poorly Twitter had been run for years and years.
@Pineywoozle I don't think that's quite right.
My perception of Musk is that he's a bored troll, and he bought Twitter first because they were willing to sell and second because it would be hilarious to him to see everyone react. It's standard trolling behavior.
I don't think Musk actually thought he'd sell anyone anything. That would only be a side benefit should it work out.
And the thing is, Musk was absolutely right that it would get him that attention and reaction.
After all, we're talking about him.
For people interested in #USPolitics this episode of #Cato Daily Podcast is pretty short and informative.
Briefly, it looks at the evolving divide among #conservatives / #Republican party members and notably how the more #Trump aligned side has come to focus on politics primarily as a tool for attacking enemies, not building anything up.
This is important for a few reasons, both to understand them so as to figure out how to react to them AND as a way of predicting how things will work out, since that approach has little traction in the broader public.
Trump was elected by a coalition of different groups with vastly different, often contradictory interests. This evolution utterly breaks the coalition, though.
https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/natcons-vs-freecons
For context, the judges went beyond what the Supreme Court said, and it's likely Alabama hopes to win on appeal, saying that the judges overstepped their legal authority here.
The judges can be "troubled" all they want that they weren't able to order the state around. That doesn't mean that they do or do not actually have that authority.
Regarding scalability, YES! when I read the spec for the first time I had the similar thought, that this system doesn't look like it had any thought about scalability.
I even commented to some developer friends about this, joking that it doesn't seem like anyone did a big-O analysis of this system, and one replied with a sigh that some schools don't even teach big-O anymore.
It just really reinforces my sense that ActivityPub was designed by people with a very superficial background, without much understanding of lessons learned long ago.
I don't mind being openly critical of it :)
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:
