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
To be clear, for anyone who would like to see what #SCOTUS actually said about #Texas and the border, here's their order.
No, they did not tell Texas to stop drowning migrants or any nonsense like that.
We get nowhere with that sort of sensationalism.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012224zr_fd9g.pdf
@LiamOMaraIV No, the words of the court did not order such a thing.
Go ahead and read the words for yourself.
You'll see for yourself that the court did not make such an order.
@hughtaylorscifi@universeodon.com The problem is that the mastodon way of sorting feeds and displaying content promotes echo chambers.
Everybody is celebrating this idea of leaving algorithms behind, and even setting aside that chronological sort IS an algorithm, when you leave people with only hashtags and follows as the only ways of tailoring their feeds, you end up with even more echo chambers.
I don't think Mastodon was the best way to go. Maybe it was a minor improvement, maybe not, but it just wasn't the real solution to the problems people were looking to have solved.
@Ronial it's money for the poor ones because the poor ones derive value from using it as money!
Haven't I made that clear? I'm surprised you don't know by now how I think that since I think I spelled out how I think that a couple of times now.
It's almost like you just don't want to hear it because it doesn't match what you want to believe.
Or maybe you're just too busy thinking about the rich for some reason.
@nurglerider Oh I thought I said it above so I didn't want to repeat myself.
No, Bitcoin does not require this amount of energy. It's not part of the protocol or the design of the system.
You could run the entire Bitcoin system off of a car battery and a solar cell if you wanted to. Not just one node, but the entire system. The crypto runs on a fanless Raspberry Pi just fine
All of this shouting about the amount of energy that bitcoin requires is just sensationalist hyperbole that doesn't match the technological facts of how the system functions and what it requires.
I'm sorry that there are so many outlets putting out sensationalist nonsense to get clicks, but they're wrong.
Now, there is an option for people to trade more energy for Bitcoin if it's valuable enough to them, if it's worthwhile and worth more than the energy to them, but that is completely optional, completely up to them.
And at that point it's a matter of trading something that's less valuable for something that's more valuable, which is a good thing by definition.
But bitcoin doesn't require it.
@mrcopilot that's not how the Supreme Court works.
@LiamOMaraIV that's not what SCOTUS told them.
The order is public. We can all read for ourselves that such a claim is flat out false.
@newsopinionsandviews anyone thinking this is simple and unambiguous have not heard or understood the arguments pointing out how complex and ambiguous it absolutely is.
It's an extremely naive view of the case.
A dangerously naive view of the case.
That's at best. I'd like to call it a flat out deceptive view of the case, but I'm trying to be diplomatic, as per Hanlon's Razor.
No, no Constitutional crisis here.
Well first, let's call out the headline for being completely, and utterly, false.
#SCOTUS merely vacated an order preventing the US from interfering in TX fencing.
That doesn't mean the US has to interfere, or that TX can't continue its fencing.
And, should Texas try to physically clash with US agents, there are plenty of legal--constitutional--avenues to address such a conflict.
This article is sensational and does a disservice to the public.
@bblaze@iceshrimp.social well, not necessarily clickbait or gaslighting but also, perhaps, pushing an agenda while relying on simple ignorance of what has happened here.
@Ronial so you wouldn't mind if it was, in your words, "cryptocurrencies for the rich people"?
That wasn't an attack, just some neutral description you happened to be wrong about, but that didn't factor into your opinion?
To be clear, you're not against Bitcoin, but against this false version of how Bitcoin works.
But I think it's funny that you seem to be distancing yourself from a position that it's a problem that it might be "for the rich".
@nurglerider
@noyes **YUP!**
And folks perceiving this as having been a uniquely unparalleled breach of ethics is exactly why so many are so pissed off about it, demanding investigations, and demanding accountability for what they're seeing as exactly such a monumental breach of all sorts of norms, laws, expectations, and all the rest.
@73ms ha, I half agree, but I think you skated past the important point:
This is caused by us having laws *both created and enforced by individuals that we elected and continue to elect*.
I DO want to zero in on "this is caused by us having laws" because that's the key to improving things.
We keep reelecting the people who promote that, and the solution is for us to stop doing that.
That we have laws is the problem. That we elect better people is the solution.
So it's vital to realize that this is all up to the population in the end.
Right, you shouldn't have to explain this to me because you shouldn't have been so factually misinformed in the first place.
You SHOULD know better if this is a topic that's interesting to you.
Sadly, it sounds like you have been misinformed, so here we are.
I'm referring to whatever conspiracy you want to be promoting today.
I don't figure you're going to be consistent about buying into any particular one.
@Ronial I like how you kept going back to the rich in the comment you made about not being obsessed with the rich.
You do realize that poor people can receive value from something that has absolutely nothing to do with dreaming of being rich, right?
Perhaps you're projecting as your obsession with the rich has you constantly having such dreams, without realizing that the rest of us don't share the obsession.
Some of us are happy in the little creature comforts.
@73ms yes, that's what I said: they don't have a monopoly on the information, as it's public by definition, but they have a monopoly on use of the information.
And that underscores the problem identified above.
@EvilSandmich I'd say mainstream GOP would agree with you that Biden isn't in charge.
Really, I'd say their logic is flawed in a different place: their simultaneous declaring that the law isn't being followed and then the demand for new laws.
But that's what they're working with.
@Ronial again, us poor ones that derive value from whatever war you have in mind would like some consideration, if you can stop obsessing over the rich for a moment.
@Ronial I suspect most people running server farms are already informed enough that I don't need to tell them how the system works.
Bitcoin can run on a RaspberryPi and a solar panel. It doesn't require that much power.
You could set it up today if you wanted to.
It's not an inoffensive logical puzzle. It's just a sensational story being sold despite being factually wrong.
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:
