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
@_dm that's not accurate, though. The complaint wasn't for reporting on antisemitism on Twitter.
The complaint was about Media Matters publishing reports that mislead the public on MM's own methodologies and experiences on the website.
Heck, the complaint itself recognized the bad content. That's not at issue here.
@tomjennings some of us aren't obsessed with Musk, and that's the difference.
I don't give a crap about the troll, and it would probably be good for yourself, and society in general, if we stopped giving the troll so much of the attention he craves.
@dangoodin don't think of it as supporting Twitter. It's really not.
Think of it as them using the communication tool most effective at getting their messages out and informing the public.
It simply has nothing to do with Twitter itself. It's all about communication, nothing more.
But even if voters aren't rational or informed they are still at the root of the process, the necessary piece of the machine that fuels all of the rest.
It's missing the key part of the picture to ignore the voters at the center of the whole thing.
If anything, the rest of these qualities around how voters operate represent openings by which to fix other parts of the system, but only if you recognize voters in the first place.
Say you think voters are all open to being bribed for their votes. Great! Get to bribing to push for a better tomorrow.
Or ignore voters and let others set the way as they see fit.
@TheConversationUS
@KarunaX but these rhetorical questions have real world answers!
You say it's the UNSC that's preventing the UN from doing more good, but should the UN lose funding it might not even be able to do the good it does now.
And so the UNSC isn't preventing the UN from doing more good. It's enabling the UN to do more good than it would have otherwise.
The other thing is, you mention the cause of failure of the system, but that relies on how a person gauges success and failure, what the person sets the goals as.
Many people simply have different ideas about what the UN is for in the first place, and particularly what the UNSC structure is supposed to be doing.
That disagreement of purpose is itself a pretty serious problem.
@prawned@iceshrimp.social
I was disappointed by this approach as through it #Mastodon doesn't so much empower a user to shape their own experience as it asks someone else to shape that experience for them, guessing what the user wants it to be.
It's backwards, IMO.
@spreadmastodon
@joeinwynnewood arguably, yes, but the argument is a bad one that so many of us don't find compelling when we consider it against the state of the nation and world.
Biden has been letting the baton slip, and we should replace him before he lets it hit the ground.
If anything his successes might include spiking the thing.
@TheConversationUS
@js but you overlooked the requirement that voters actively go out and vote to empower those players.
We really can't talk about these outcomes without also talking about the voters who not only allow but actively elect and re-elect this status quo.
For example, incumbancy is only a special superpower if voters go out and pull the lever to say "Yes, I want this person to continue in office, here's more power"
@jf_718 It's unfortunate, IMO, but a lot of Fediverse users that I see really enjoy being in an echo chamber here, with some people actually openly calling for that.
And so if you don't sing exactly the same song as they do, all sorts of messages are projected onto you, all sorts of assumptions made.
I don't think that's good for society or for individuals, but not only is what you describe alive and well, but it's being celebrated and promoted here.
@ercanbrack I've heard that can happen to accounts that aren't accessed often as the algorithm doesn't have indication that you're interested in anything, so it doesn't have content to show you.
I don't see nearly that many advertisements.
Oh, I see, so a little more like the nostr design than AP.
Yeah, I thought the multiple-big-relay design sounded like a good part of the solution to the problem, and I faulted AP for missing aggregation like that.
https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/5-5-2023-federation-architecture
@KarunaX the answer to your question is highlighted by the below link :)
The UNSC is set up in such a way as to keep its funders happy as it negotiates for more funding from them.
Why isn't India on the UNSC? Because that risks the loss of funding for UN operations.
Why no permanent representation from the Middle East? Because that risks the loss of funding for UN operations.
(Really, funding is just one of many things they're afraid to loose, but it captures the reality among many resources)
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N18/461/91/PDF/N1846191.pdf
@mackuba see, this is the kind of thing I really focus on, the scaling of the core, not so much the scaling of userbase and use cases and such.
Without scaleable core infrastructure everyone above it is hamstrung.
You say BGS and AppView are pretty resource heavy, which is reminiscent of some of the growing pains ActivityPub has seen.
All distributed platforms face similar problems of how to transfer and synchronize content between endpoints when every single sender wants to get every single message to every single receiver, a growing list times a growing list times a growing list.
I wasn't impressed by AP's solution to this problem, and I wonder if AT has a solution that's more efficient and effective.
Above you said that there were no missing replies to threads, as a sign that it should scale better, but it worries me that that level of certainty indicates that it will scale *worse* under the hood with senders struggling to ensure that all content gets to all receivers.
Some notes on #bluesky under the hood.
I've heard from some who looked at the protocol that it's horrifying, so it was interesting to hear from someone saying it was workable.
@volkris @maegul I do like it much more myself (I've been hacking on it since April). It fixes some issues that AP has like the ease of account mig...
@KarunaX they're both part of the same system, though. You can't so cleanly separate the GC and SC out of the overall UN.
Everything from practical matters of resourcing through political matters of reinforcing resolutions that DO make it through both are part of that system that would be fundamentally different and not necessarily better without either part.
You point out that the SC is a club for major players. Well yeah, and the UN needs those major players, whether we like it or not, so having that club brings more power to the UN overall.
The UN sanctions this undemocratic club by necessity, and so the UN is by necessity fairly undemocratic.
@birdutterance call it what you will, but regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, those feelings aren't informed if they overlook the agency of the people who choose to take the trip.
"Freedom to leave everyone behind" is not a factual description of what's being proposed. You're focusing on what those individuals DIDN'T do while skipping right past what they DID do.
Again, it's understandable that your personal values differ from others. That's part of living in a diverse society.
But if a bunch of people decide to go on a dangerous trip with full knowledge of the risks, well this one isn't for me, but I respect their agency to make those decisions for themselves.
@SvenGeier ... well right, so same thing here.
@Devilstower one thing on my mind is, I'd caution people against taking those displays fully at face value.
I don't think we have public information about how (and even IF) they're calculated based on telemetry--whether they're a direct reading of some sort or based on engine feedback for example.
They're something to consider, but we need to be skeptical of those displays.
NOT because SpaceX is doing something deceitful here. It's just the nature of engineering instrumentation.
I have a lot of criticisms of this video, starting from its admission that it's working with limited information before charging right ahead despite that vacuum.
But mainly it seems especially unaware of the relevant R&D processes at play here, while jumping through hoops to insist on pretty unreasonable definitions of failure.
Two ships instead of one? Why would that be anything but an artificial metric?
It sounds like this video is just a big exercise in the creator stretching to confirm their biases, for some reason.
@AstroMigration @Powareverb
@ahoyboyhoy @blake didn't mention a particular law, but rather a general want for there to be a law against employment agreements he didn't like.
So it's not about my right to strike. It's about my right to benefit from my labor even in ways that Blake doesn't personally agree with.
He'd use state power to impose his opinions on workers' rights to sign agreements that benefit them.
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:
