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
Because it improves our lives by serving society with everything from scientific study through communications enhancements.
volkris
boosted
Next year, SpaceX aims to average one launch every 2.5 days
SpaceX's Falcon rockets are flying more often than any launch vehicle in history.
@binaryhawk The problem that people don't appreciate is that this isn't merely about the individual Speaker but about the entire structure of the operation of the chamber, with everything from rules of procedure through committee assignments at stake.
So they don't merely have to agree on a Speaker. They would have to also agree on a division of committee assignments that would get more votes to one party or another, one faction or another, and that is unlikely to all happen on a bipartisan basis.
I don't think it's likely at all that Democrats would allow the Republicans to maintain their committee control because that kind of compromise comes with some pretty serious effects.
@tc_morekindness If the court based its argument for its authority on the idea that the state has a proportional election system, when we both agree that it doesn't, then it was factually wrong.
It seems like you're agreeing about the facts of the case, but really don't want to accept the implication that the old court getting the facts wrong means that the ruling was in error and therefore cannot legally stand.
But again, we don't even have to go that far. If it's true that the state has a proportional election system, then the court cannot have ordered the resolution. It did to adjust districting without contradicting itself, so again, the ruling cannot stand legally.
Any path taken to try to get around the fact that the state does not have a proportional election system leads to a dead end. That fact simply can't be waived away, and again, I stress that it's a fact we both agree on.
@BlueintheSouth no, but Americans handed the matches to the jerks they elected and then re-elected, and whether you appreciate them setting the fire or not, I guess that's a personal perspective.
Well to be fair, a lot of my experience dealing with other peoples' code and systems tend to involve open source, so you know, amateurs without necessarily high standards.
@mastodonmigration you are having a far different experience here than I am.
My feed is full of people misstating what's happening in US politics and ugly messages about particular politicians.
I guess it all depends on what sources and hashtags people follow.
The USPolitics hashtag is kind of gross.
@tc_morekindness one of the most fundamental parts of any court ruling is the court first laying out why it has authority to rule in the first place
You generally see that in court rulings at all levels. The court has to have both jurisdiction and a case on which to rule, otherwise the court would be violating constitutional principles and acting as an unelected legislature.
So if the previous court ruling was wrong about its own authority to weigh in, then that is no mere technicality, it's a fundamental error.
It's like, say I write a document saying *I* personally can make the decision. No matter how perfect the rest of my opinion may be, the fact that I'm not actually a judge on the NC court is no small technicality. My opinion cannot rule the day.
Same here. If the previous court was wrong about its authority, that's no small thing. Its ruling handed down without legal authority cannot be respected.
Anyway, sounds like the previous court based its authority in part on the errant argument over representation, so that does fit in there.
Yeah, I was reminded of seeing cases of XML where the developer had basically make all tags "element" and then included attributes "elementname=X" where X should have been the tag name, really missing the point and ruining xpath/xquery functionality.
And that made me think of looking inside SQL database tables to see records composed of long strings of CSV shoved in.
Both cases developers really missing the point and giving up the power that their tools really gave them.
People delighting in #Jordan not getting enough votes to be elected Speaker and the business of the #House resumed really capture the idea of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Well, or maybe they just like to see the world burn.
Ah well, so long as they don't go on to complain about the legislative business that's not getting done.
@tc_morekindness but that's a contradiction then: the district system conflicts with a proportional vote, so the court would have erred to interpret the system as proportional while ordering districts.
If that's what happened then the ruling contradicted itself.
If the court really believed a constitution required proportional voting, it should have ordered the dissolution of all districts and a statewide vote.
No matter which way you slice it, the previous court ruling seems to have been wrong.
NC judicial process allows for an appeal of a ruling within a certain number of days, so they appealed the ruling, and the new court merely recognized that the old court ruling was wrong and therefore must be void.
It's exactly how the system was supposed to work to make sure election law is upheld.
@danwentzel the other side set this up...
@johnobriant the problem is that in order to overcome Democrats' vote numbers they're having to deal with a few members who honestly AREN'T interested in governing.
It's hard to see a path forward with those few members so empowered to call the shots for the entire chamber.
@ikuo1000 maybe it's just taking a while to be processed and displayed.
ActivityPub does have a habit of overloading servers, so maybe the Pixelfed instance has it in the queue to be processed when it can.
@manton I just really don't understand why it matters what some bumbling politician says.
I wouldn't let my personal opinions be shaped by the less worse person able squeak by in an election.
@tc_morekindness but the court seems to have been wrong, if that's its argument.
If the court came to its conclusion based on treating the voting system as PR, when it's not, then the court was simply incorrect.
If the new court is correctly pointing out that the old court was wrong, then that's a positive thing, preserving the rule of law around their election system.
That's why I was asking specifically what the argument was, to see if the old court was right or not.
I don't care which team wins. I want to see that election laws are upheld.
@ikuo1000 that does sound strange.
In general there are issues with different content making it to different instances, that's expected, but normally the instance originating content being interacted with, with a comment for example, should be one of the few instances guaranteed to receive the interaction.
IOW, if I make a post on this instance and you comment on it, my instance should definitely receive the comment even though other instances aren't guaranteed to receive it.
Sounds like a bug or glitch somewhere to me.
@arstechnica the error is in assuming a verified user is an honest user.
Why in the world was that ever a conflation?
Even honest humans are fallible and untrustworthy, so confirming that someone is human isn't a guarantee of trustworthiness.
@itwasntme223 the question on the table was not whether to vote for their opponent.
The question on the table was whether to shut down the House.
It wasn't a vote FOR McCarthy to deny the Republican extremists their wish. It would have been a vote AGAINST the Republican extremists.
Or, to put it a different way, the problem isn't about whether they should have voted for their opponent. The problem is that they DID, assuming the GOP extremists were their opponents.
The question on the table was whether to shut down the House, and drama involving McCarthy was only a side story.
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:
