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
@PoliticalIQ that gets it backwards, though.
The appeals court ruling doesn't weaken the VRA. Instead, the ruling is about upholding what the act actually says, strengthening the result of the democratic process that passed it.
If we don't like what the law says our representatives can change it, but courts making such rulings do so in compliance to the law, not the opposite.
@jezebelley@social.linux.pizza I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say.
My point was that yes you said you were willing to listen, and I was questioning whether that was actually true.
Because given your attitude earlier in the thread, I really doubt it. I'm happy to be wrong, but geez, you were really leaning into hard-headedness something fierce.
I hope you are more open-minded. None of my business though.
@jezebelley@social.linux.pizza ARE you willing to listen and understand, though?
It sounds to me like you are not only stubborn, but you are really owning it, really leaning into having your heels dug in, like it's a mark of pride for you.
@jrm4 bingo.
It's actually a bit gaslighty that so many seem to deny that Twitter remains a functional communications platform.
You don't have to like the place to admit that it's still up and running just fine.
@jezebelley@social.linux.pizza
@uniinnsbruck seems like you ought to do both.
Voluntarily giving up audience doesn't help science communication. It limits it.
@jwilker yes exactly.
I wish people would realize that the two-party system is a response to our voting system, it's not separate.
So the push for third parties basically attack the symptom while overlooking the cause.
@decembr14 a lot of people seem awfully eager to yell about Musk for some reason and criticizing Starship is part of that.
And facts have absolutely nothing to do with it.
@danwentzel he didn't attempt a coup.
Wrong branch of government.
@lps the problem is that smaller instances and more of them consume exponentially more resources, making the whole system exponentially more expensive to operate.
That's just how the protocol was designed, unfortunately.
People complain about Bitcoin being resource-intensive, but Fediverse faces a similar problem.
@ScriptFanix well right.
SpaceX built on the knowledge of other efforts that came before and progressed the technology to new stages, building on that. And they absolutely ran computer simulations.
But once you forge new ground like this there is no substitute for experimentation.
And that's exactly what we saw: they are developing new and improved technologies based on the existing work that pushes the field forward, which requires trial to explosion.
There is just no other way to progress the technology, but humanity will be better off for those lessons being learned.
@MugsysRapSheet right, I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense that their plan was to put a rocket into orbit when everything we see says otherwise.
All of the announcements, all of the licensing, all of the regulatory approvals, all of the preparations, every single thing about this showed that they intentionally did not plan to orbit the vehicle.
I'm trying to be polite and say that you need some better news sources because apparently you have been misinformed.
But at some point it's really tough to blame your news sources. At some point it just comes down to you apparently being uninterested in contemplating facts that go against this fiction that you cling to for some reason.
No, you're wrong. Everything about this mission debunks your claims here.
@KarunaX supporting the US empire? What in the world are you talking about?
@KarunaX but the UN isn't particularly democratic, as indicated by the security council veto process and the fact that neither you nor I have a vote.
That's just not how the UN works.
@leosam the previous institution lost the faith of the people
@libscie I mean, we voted for it
@jasonemiller wow, no, you're very wrong.
Firstly, the test didn't fail. I don't know what you think the goal of the test was, but it accomplished the milestones that SpaceX set out for it ahead of time. From lift off through staging the test succeeded in milestone after milestone.
They weren't aiming to get the rocket into orbit here. That was intentionally not on the table
But it sounds like you're also ignorant about the tremendous interest that the FAA and other regulatory agencies put into reviewing these activities before approving them.
Yes, the regulators gave quite a shit about all of this, as SpaceX was blocked for quite a long time by the regulatory agencies who were reviewing their operations.
So it sounds like, I don't know who you're listening to, but somebody is giving you wrong information.
@Grandalf@aus.social to add one kind of important detail, reaching orbit was not part of this operation intentionally.
They had designed the operation to splash down in the Pacific Ocean at the farthest without going into orbit, my understanding being that SpaceX was not counting on this test flight to be completely reliable, and so they intentionally did not risk going into orbit where things could be less controllable.
So orbit was never on the table and that fact helps show that this lunch was a success. This was a test vessel and it successfully tested things.
@DavidM_yeg well right, the writing isn't surprising because it's the sort of rating that is biased from the beginning.
It gets the result it sought.
But it's not very informative. It's just really bias confirming, not particularly useful.
@MoiraEve@mastodon.world that must be it.
@maegul so I haven't looked myself, but I have heard other people say that when they poked around at the documentation they were horrified by it.
I guess you found it actually okay? What did you like about it?
And to lay my cards on the table, when I poked at the ActivityPub standard that horrified me. It looked completely unable to scale, and I felt like instance operators confirmed that when they started talking about the resource consumption.
I do hope that AT is better.
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:
