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
It sounds to me like you're missing the way both sides of the issue can express authoritarian slants, with one side demanding control over their own kids and the other side demanding control over parents/institutions.
I'd say authoritarianism is on a separate axis of the graph from the parents' rights debate.
There is, so we don't need to wonder about it.
Republicans don't seem to be running around with their hair on fire over it.
@freemo yes, you can argue that your own personal use of a word is the one true use of the word, but that's just not how language works :)
And yes, some DO say that gas is green when paired with an at least equal amount of CO2 capture. That is a way some people use the term. I think it's a bit less common usage, though.
But there is the huge difference that when you grow and burn wood you're directly engaging the carbon cycle without any external factors needed.
You capture carbon and just release the exact same carbon that you captured, without any accounting or trickery of assuming other carbon will be captured somewhere else.
The drugs have been tested much more broadly than these headlines claim. They're only looking at one subset of tests that involved a few mice.
In other words, they were only tested on ten mice and then a bunch of other tests.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
But Supreme Court justices aren't required to commit to such disclosures since that would represent a violation of the independence of the judicial branch.
The one and only available response to a justice misbehaving is individual impeachment.
Otherwise the other branches could exert all sorts of pressure on the Court by law or threat of sanction.
Congress does have a constitutional role in lower courts, but the independence of the Supreme Court is core to the system of checks and balances.
@thor but isn't this exactly what you're doing?
I think particularly in this case we don't need to consider whether correlation implies causation when we have actual practical math with real numbers to consider.
We can consider the marginal cost of the better one time purchase and then the smaller recurring or daily costs, and even include things like interest compounding if we want to.
For anyone interested, here's the link directly to the video and timestamp of Brooks explaining his tweet and saying he thought it was a mistake for him to have tweeted it.
Sounds like he meant it as a joke but people took it on face value, so Poe's Law applies.
In part it depends on what you mean by "fediverse."
To a lot of people fediverse specifically refers to the system that uses the ActivityPub protocol to tie instances together. Since AP doesn't support those things, there can't be a fediverse answer to them.
Other people push for a broader definition of "fediverse" but that gets tricky.
@freemo I'd say this is a case where different people may use the terms slightly differently, and this example falls within the bounds of normal diversity of usages.
Since growing and burning wood keep the carbon cycle on the surface some would consider it to be green.
That's in contrast to something like burning and mining coal, which releases new carbon on the surface that had been previously removed from the cycle.
A problem is that the underlying technology and protocols scale mainly proportional to number of instances and not users.
In other words, more instances mean a lot more resources are needed to communicate messages between them, but twice as many users doesn't require that much more.
This is baked in to the engineering decisions that were already made, and it would be pretty hard to change those decisions now.
So, whether or not the future is large instances philosophically, the system was programmed to promote them technologically.
Sounds like the #Hollywood writer's strike is raising the issue of requiring an arbitrary minimal number of writers to be involved in a production, which just makes me think about the phrase "designed by committee."
It's not supposed to be a positive phrase, so making the committee arbitrarily larger doesn't inspire confidence in the eventual work.
Alabama is saying the *district court* made an error in failing to notice that AL is upholding the *Supreme Court's* ruling.
The Supreme Court "in Allen never said the measure of a congressional redistricting plan’s compliance with §2 is as simple as counting the number of majority-minority districts" as the district court insists. [1]
All of this reporting that AL is violating the Supreme Court ruling is misleading at best and outright false at worse.
It's not necessarily true that users will be exposed until they block. Alternatively, they could only see feeds that they allow.
So some demand one thing, others demand the opposite, and empowering users to make those decisions as to their own experiences is a great way to go.
A problem is that they're working with limited resources, limited staff, and to put resources toward a certain activity, like updating a Fediverse account, means taking them away from some other valuable use.
If they only have resources to update one or two platforms it makes sense to update Twitter.
Well, keep in mind that sometimes a blind person might simply want to know what's in the image, and if the description is too long they might not want to wade through it to find out.
The problem with that line of argument is that it tries to counter one false or misleading stance with just a different false or misleading stance, which leaves the response vulnerable to debunking.
YES e2ee absolutely lets people doing bad things hide in the dark, and there's no sense denying that. Those technologies protect the privacy and hide communication of all without regard to their guilt. Any denial of that will come across as obviously wrong.
Instead the argument should be that protections of privacy for all, for YOU, are worth supporting as we find the balance between personal rights and law enforcement priorities.
Yes, if we had a camera in every bedroom we'd catch more people doing bad things, and not mandating such cameras does hamper law enforcement, but we're willing to accept that trade off. We don't deny that police cameras in bedrooms would catch more; we point out that we're willing to make that trade.
Same here.
@freemo it's one of those cases where people are reading way too much into a statement #Musk makes on the fly.
The statement I've seen quoted was his merely musing about ways to combat bots. And then the world blew up interpreting that as his saying they would definitely be charging everyone for #Twitter access.
We've been around this cycle so many times, but people never learn.
It's like the opposite of the boy who cried wolf: the boy didn't cry it and the villagers didn't stop responding.
Here's a link to the Senate talking about going through the appropriations process, and they're talking about it even as the House hasn't passed any bills.
Whoever told you that appropriations are initiated in the House told you wrong.
Maybe you're confusing it with the requirement that bills for raising revenue must begin in the House, though even that is basically nullified these days through the amendment loophole in the Senate.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-and-collins-kick-off-consideration-of-first-appropriations-bills-on-the-senate-floor
@MaryAustinBooks
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:
