volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@whotookkarl

I mean our democratic process doesn't buy these stories about justices being bought and paid for in the first place.

Yes, some special interest groups and clickbait reporters are making good with all of those stories that are often debunked pretty quickly, but never mind that.

In general keep in mind that the Supreme Court doesn't make judgments of others. It's mostly an appellate court considering the work of lower courts, not of the others being judged.

So I guess I'm saying, I think you are really kind of going chaotically off base here, being misled both by stories with conflicts of interests and by misunderstandings of how the Supreme Court works in the first place.

Just watch out for those people who are making money by selling these dramatic stories.

@wonkcosmo

@filsalustri

Again it's more complicated than that. The math is just more complicated.

If you expend energy, heat energy yes, to change to a more effective way of managing heat, basically sometimes that investment leads to a net gain in heat ejection.

Or to put it practically, the relatively small amount of heat that water pumps produce might pay off in enormously more effective rejection of heat into space.

Stopping global warming is a completely different question. There's no panacea here. However, the point is that the math is a little more complicated, and sometimes spending a little extra heat energy will pay off by better managing the base load that is a given.

@mxtthxw

@wonkcosmo

Well it's tricky because in one case you're talking about threatening judicial independence, and in the other you're talking about a story that's already been discredited by its source.

But keeping the drama alive gets news outfits lots of clicks and ad revenue, facts aside, so we keep getting hit with the slanted dramatic tellings.

@bflipp

I mean, NFTs without fraudulent investment angles are still NFTs just as cash without pyramid schemes is still cash.

It's unfortunate that people confuse the technology that has real use with dishonest schemes that have leveraged the new technology against those not familiar with it.

@simon_lucy

Properly applied by law it should all fail to bits even within the US.

From jurisdictional issues through constitutional and practical issues, such regulations should not be really enforceable within the US, much less internationally.

Sadly, all too often the laws are kind of ignored for practical or political reasons.
@lauren

@nvemb3r

Just keep in mind that different users seek very different experiences, so while the block feature can help each user tailor their experience to their want, other levels of moderation go the other way, imposing an experience on others despite the diversity of preferences of users.

So I wouldn't talk about blocking and reporting and moderation in the same category. They can have very different implications.

@alanrycroft

Wow, the Secretary of State not wanting to speak out of his lane is not the dramatic playground tit for tat that Tapper seems to project onto it.

It sounds like Blinken was being professional, not engaging with this press muckraking, and that's exactly what he should be doing.

This drama about offending a billionaire who clearly doesn't care about such things is nonsense from Tapper.

@filsalustri

Excuse the double-response, but I was passing some commercial cooling towers today and thought they'd be a great example to answer your question.

In many commercial and industrial settings they've realized that by transporting heat to centralized plants they're able to deal with it more efficiently, creating less additional heat for the same amount of end-use cooling.

Those sites could line up minisplit systems for every office to handle the same amount of heat, but carrying it away in a single evaporative cooling tower handles the same amount of heat more efficiently and effectively.

@mxtthxw

@darnell

Right, but so what? It doesn't matter what Musk may have issues with, either he does or he does not have the legal protection he's claiming here.

He might believe with every fiber of his being that he has federal legal protections against the CA law; but that doesn't impact whether such federal law exists.

So same with GDPR and DMA and whatever else. I don't care what Musk WANTS; if he doesn't have such legal protection against regulation then he doesn't have it.

This question isn't about Musk at all. It's about what the laws actually say.
@EU_Commission

@empiricism

I'm just still left a bit puzzled as to why you began this thread talking about polling data when you're so quick to ignore peoples' opinions as wrong.

If the data and voters' personal preferences are so subject to being wrong, why bother with any of it?

It seems more straightforward to just say you're looking to impose certain policies no matter what the democratic process might have to say about that.

@watson@freeatlantis.com

For someone who demands respect an awful lot of the country declines to give it to him.

Or maybe that's the difference between demands respect and commands respect.

And it's why he can't win the EC vote, because far too many voters will not vote for him under any circumstances.

Because they don't respect him, based on his behavior.

@darnell

Aren't GDPR and DMA in a vastly different position?

In this case, Musk is suing California saying that the CA law runs afoul of federal law, but is there some higher law above EU Commission that would similarly block GDPR?
@EU_Commission

@lauren

I'd agree to an extent.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's a very bad situation; I think it's less than ideal and something the system should work on improving.

I'd also say changing the way you write is just like any other communication: there are always compromises when meeting others halfway during any engagement.

You know, reading the room.

And heck, it's not the worst thing in the world for a system to encourage more complete thoughts in each bit of content, even if that's more for the benefit of all more than for the author.

But yep, it's something that needs fixing around here.

@eribosot

I think people are often too quick to say they don't understand the law so they'll just let others figure it out for them.

That's especially troubling in a society that values transparency and democratic values, as it effectively gives up on knowing what rules for us are, allowing a different class of people to argue among themselves post-hoc whether we should face punishment.

And it prevents us from holding lawmakers accountable if we decide we can't understand their work.

So yeah, I'm pretty against the idea of relying on lawyers. We should understand the laws ourselves in part so that we can hold the lawyers themselves accountable

@allpoints

@empiricism

First you started with polling data about what the people want.

I point out that when you include costs the polling data might show different wants from people.

Now you're basically saying what the people want doesn't matter because they want the wrong things because of rich people?

Which is it? Do we care what the people want or not? Do the polls matter or not?

@filsalustri

If nothing else, heat pumps are the common way of actively moving heat around.

But there are all kinds of clever ways to move heat around, ranging from taking advantage of natural phenomena like flowing rivers through chemical reactions and radiative cooling.

But again, it's not so simple as a rate dictated by the properties of materials. Other factors, particular temperature gradients, play huge roles.

The simplest example is that heat conduction is proportional to the difference in temperatures, so the rate of heat conduction varies depending on temperatures on each end for the same material.

@mxtthxw

@mreader I mean, his intervention was at the request of the US to provide that communication service that nobody else was in a position to provide.

It's not that the US government can't allow him to intervene; it's that they felt they had no choice but to request that he act to help Ukraine.

If the US doesn't want his service anymore, well he's said he'd rather not keep providing it, so I guess he's on your side?

But so far the US government is continuing to pressure him to stay in.

@SteveThompson

You literally quoted the reason other than "because he can"...