volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@smurthys correct.

Basically, it requires a majority to act, and without a majority there is no action.

Without action there's no overturning of the lower court, since that would be an action.

@MugsysRapSheet no, the one has nothing to do with the other.

States independently operate their election systems under their own rules.

Heck, the trials don't even accuse Trump of what CO and ME have settled on, just to highlight how separate the processes are.

@joshadell but Trump has no authority to do that in part BECAUSE of SCOTUS power.

@RememberUsAlways I imagine the appeal would be based on the reasoning she laid out to support the decision.

Should it be shown that either her reasoning is faulty or her factual basis is incorrect, the decision would be a violation of due process under state law, which is a federal requirement, and the appeal would have teeth.

It's one thing to say that under state law I have discretion, but another to say I used my discretion based on x, y, and z, which turned out to be faulty.
@pomCountyIrregs

@RememberUsAlways remember that Bush v Gore didn't itself allow vote certification, but rather it disallowed a lower court from interfering.

That's a technical difference, but a very important one here.

@petersuber after watching conservatives respond to ranked choice voting in Alaska, it became really, really clear that they didn't understand what it was or how it worked.

They're not so much forgetting anything as they're simply misinformed about what it is they're attacking, which is a shame.

@freemo The idea is that this isn't a judge restraining free speech as much as maintaining order in his court, including the parts of court proceedings that happen outside the literal courtroom.

If a person was in the courtroom during the trial and wouldn't sit down and shut up when it wasn't their turn to speak, the judge could respond to that, right? It wouldn't be seen as a free speech violation, but rather just the judge giving others their chance to do their jobs?

Same thing here.

It wouldn't be punishment over speech--it would be jailing as a way to prevent interference with the court proceedings.

@mjgardner I assume no such thing.

But hashtags, **to the extent that they're used**, do give you finer grained control over your own experience than cws **to the extent that they're used**.

@mjgardner you can't focus on blocking hashtags for topics you don't want to hear about?

@IanSudbery I think you're missing how vitally important these theories were.

Special relativity did not come out of the blue. Rather it was an extremely difficult mental leap brought on by extremely critical gaps of knowledge as theorists had struggled mightily to figure out how to fit together different parts of the model of the universe around them.

Same with general relativity: you describe it as cleaning up minor details, but those minor details loomed very large! They weren't exactly minor.

It's been my experience talking with philosophers that someone is telling them these really incorrect versions of what physicists are doing today and have been doing for the last 100 years. It says if there are standard textbooks out there that are just plain factually incorrect about what the field has been doing, and this has been leaving philosophy students with really incorrect ideas about how it works in practice.

@tobychev @dlevenstein

@Wikisteff I would say at that point the horse has been out of the barn for generations.

It's not that the conspiracy you describe would do much the same thing in practice. Rather, it would be a symptom of the same thing already having happened in practice, at which point we would no longer have been living in the United States for a while. People just would not have recognized it formally yet.

Furthermore, the supreme court at that point would no longer be acting within its own authority, so it's not like they would have the authority to make such a declaration.

But like I said above, for the conspiracy you described to be practical we would have had to, collectively, long before have abandoned the structure of the United States.

@mok0 @georgetakei

@icedquinn I've tinkered with those features over the years, but in general library management tools never made the workflow convenient enough to justify the extra steps for me.

It has some powerful potential, but doesn't seem like it had enough to overcome the inertia of other container formats that worked well enough.

@LewisHarrington it's not entirely legal in the US, and that's causing a lot of problems.

@GatekeepKen careful: there's a good chance that if they were generating their own power they would be doing it with smaller, less efficient plants.

It could actually make the problem worse.

@gerrymcgovern

@gerrymcgovern I think that goes back to the idea of properly pricing energy to represent its real costs.

If that 10 times more intense AI search cost too much in electricity then it wouldn't be done, promoting lower total energy use.

In other words, since we've always underpriced electricity the incentives have never been there to really focus on lowering total energy use, and we could change that.

Demand will not explode if prices surge to reflect costs.

@HumanServitor

@raphael_fl I mean a lot of us are just poking fun, not really hating it 🙂

Take the example of The Simpsons with the recurring Disco Stu character that may have helped make this good-natured ribbing a lasting part of the culture, at least for some age groups.

And speaking of age groups, laughing about disco is also a that some of the younger generations tease the older generations. And heck, sometimes the older generations join in saying, " I can't believe I dressed like that back then"

And hey, neo disco has been making a comeback lately, with a lot of music sounding like it would fit right in decades ago, just with updated electronic production systems.

@lauren

@thisismissem with the legal uncertainties surrounding such hosting in the US and around the world I think it's important to consider both ethical and legal liability, but to clearly separate the two.

And the worst is that sometimes one might not be able to do the ethically right thing without fear of exposing themselves to legal consequence.

Governments need real legislative reform in these areas, it's not really something that should be just hashed out in courts, but unfortunately I don't think there's much push to see that legislation happen, so we will be stuck with these unintended consequences for, I imagine, the rest of my life at least.

But who knows? We're getting motion on things like drug reform, so I guess there is some hope.

@janl

@tze you misunderstand if you think I have a moral problem here.

No at this point I'm just laughing about how hard you are fighting not to own up to what you were calling for.

Even when your own sources emphasize exactly what you are trying to do, you just won't say yes, this issue is so important to me that I believe it justifies censorship.

Do you think the threat from the other platforms is actually kind of low? The issue isn't actually important enough to justify censorship in this case?

@sj_zero @GrahamDowns

@tze sure, and that quote gives a pretty bold stance against your call to censor expression on its way to the one who should have the choice, even if the owner of some instance thinks that censorship is a REALLY GOOD IDEA.

Again, you think censorship is worth it in this case. Great! That's a strong, principled stance to take. But take it, don't claim you're not doing what you're doing and not seeing what everyone else is free to see.

@sj_zero @GrahamDowns