volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@VedaDalsette we don't.

It's such a shame that he went political instead of just being a really funny comedian.

I really hold that against him.

@dangillmor I mean, they are a hack outfit spinning out sensationalized dramaticized manipulative content that a lot of people glom onto, as is the point of doing that.

So much of what they put out is so easy to debunk, but it confirms people's biases so I guess they digest it without question.

Yes, the outlet is pretty important. In the same way that Time's person of the year award recognizes influence without saying it's a good thing that they are so influential.

@Independent it's not wrong to ask, but it's also not wrong to answer no.

@simon_brooke

And again, are we to give up governing by people who know what they're talking about when they don't?

@rms

@acdha this is sensational and silly, though, focusing on process instead of result.

It's like saying sure I murdered that guy, but I'm not going to tell you why. No, it doesn't matter why, if I did murder the person then I can be held accountable for that murder.

Yes, political parties are going to keep their internal strategizing close to the breast, but that says nothing about whether they can act illegally. If districting is illegal, then it's illegal, regardless of why.

It's like these are journalists complaining that they can't write stories about drama that doesn't actually really matter. It's a bad sign for journalism, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the real world.

Illegal districting is illegal. This has nothing to do with that.

@mvario fortunately it's just not up to him, regardless of how many clicks Rolling Stone might get out of such a sensational headline.

@simon_brooke

Again, the difficult question is one of how to run governance if we exclude anyone who knows about the thing being governed.

@rms

@crooksandliars so?

This is only the party vote, not the House vote, so I don't know why any of us should care what the party is doing and its internal deliberations.

@simon_brooke There's an eternal problem with governance in that often enough the people with expertise in any industry are already involved in the industry, so you end up having to face the choice of whether or not to bring in someone with expertise, even if it allows articles like this to throw dirt.

That the guy is a member of the board of directors means that he might know what he's talking about.

There's not necessarily a conflict of interest here, but there is like I said the normal issue of how to govern if we are to avoid having anyone involved who knows what they're talking about.

@rms

@fredbrooker@witter.cz

Well that will vary from owner to owner as each person has their own valuation.

Just like anything else in the world.

@AlexSanterne

@izaya You're talking about studies being needed, so against that backdrop, how can you say we have 90% of the technology developed and flown?

That we would need studies means that we can't tell if the technology is developed.

No, I think this task is a lot farther out than you think it is, with a lot of technology left to be developed based on things that we still don't know about space.

At the moment we're barely able to put small disposable contraptions on that planet, not to mention all that's needed for a human to get there and survive.

So if anything if I had to guess I think it would be the opposite, we have 90% of the technology left to develop.

Hell, last I checked they still haven't even finished the new space suits, and that's such a small stepping stone to living on Mars.

@izaya It would take A LOT more money to make something like that feasible.

But the money being spent is getting us in that direction.

@AlexSanterne

But it's a huge gain for those that the terrestrial internet service can't effectively provide for. You are again over simplifying with that framing, and so ignoring the reality of what's going on.

And the launches are not just for spaceborn internet provision, more oversimplification.

@fredbrooker@witter.cz

@Peg33 That's not a flag of a country that doesn't exist.

@Peg33 I sure wish people would stop inflating the importance of Trump.

It only plays into the hands of Trump.

@dandrezner translation: this administration is struggling to handle its foreign policy

@simon_brooke as usual, this is a special interest spinning a tale and probably looking to get some donations by upsetting people.

I wish people would stop buying into this nonsense. But they get fooled over and over and keep going back to such sources.

@rms

@AlexSanterne

No, the correct question is not is this vital to us.

The world is not so simple, black and white.

It takes a more mature analysis, one that considers the marginal value versus the marginal cost, is it worth a rocket launch to conduct scientific research analyzing this or that?

Is it vital that we have an internet? Well, there's definitely a marginal gain to having it, and a marginal cost.

So it's just silly to talk about vitality when looking at the tremendous engineering advancement that results in the opportunity for such a launch cadence.

@fredbrooker@witter.cz

@lydiaconwell just because you continue to use a useful tool doesn't mean you back it.

It just means you recognize the value that using the tool gives you.

There's no cognitive dissonance there. There's just objective reality.

@InfamousLeopard383@c.im what in the world?

It was the extreme position that they should ignore the law and the history and empower a standin for Speaker to have all the powers of Speaker.

So they rejected the extreme position saying that we need to get on with the normal process. That's a moderate position.

So what you're citing here a rejection of the non-moderate path to say that moderates have been purged?

No, you have that backwards.